User talk:Wikipedian339

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Wikipedian339, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains^(talk) 01:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[This was initially a denial for Maris Kreizman, but the issues have (hopefully) been worked out and this has been resubmitted.]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dan Mertzlufft (May 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Jamiebuba were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dan Mertzlufft and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamiebuba (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Maris Kreizman (May 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TipsyElephant was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Citing everything she has written, overquoting, and trivia (why is the pug relevant?). Please move inline citations after punctuation rather than before.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Maris Kreizman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TipsyElephant (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[This was an initial rejection of the Chris Olsen article, but we got it worked out and it is now up.

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Berklee College of Music alumni, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bob James, Robert Freedman and Keith Harris. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're just a bot, but thank you so much if there's a human somewhere behind this. This was very helpful! Wikipedian339 (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Between manually written citations and the automatic ones, there are templates such as {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, perhaps try those. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, Wikipedian339. Now that I've helped you along with Sara Wordsworth, you might find it useful to become a member of Women in Red. You can sign up under New registrations on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ipigott! I'll look into that. Also, while you're here, I do have another woman I've been trying to get on wikipedia. Her husband has a page already, but she's also accomplished (and I think notable) in her own right, so it would be nice if she had one too. Draft:Maris Kreizman If you have the time, would you be interested in either putting it into the mainspace, or giving me notes if you don't think it's ready? Wikipedian339 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Kreizman is progressing well but you have included far too many primary sources which need to be eliminated. The article should be based on independent sources such as the ones from Refinery29 and Poets and Writers. If you can find one or two more which are not directly attached to Kreizman, that would certainly help. Kreizman's own website should not be used in references but can be included under External links. You might find it useful to look through Women in Red's Ten Simple Rules. Try to tidy things up and let me know when you would like me to take a new look at the article.--Ipigott (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Sorry, I just have a few clarifying questions...

1) I looked and I can't find her website in the references. I don't think I put her website in there (but I did put it in external links). Do you see it somewhere I don't?

2) As far as primary sources you think should be eliminated, do you mean her list of works & publications? I was just mirroring it off her husbands page Josh Gondelman who has a list of links to things he's written. Is that not normal for pages of writers? (And/or is there a different way I need to format it.

3) I can continue to look for more outside sources, but I have articles about her from Entertainment Weekly, the LA Times, Amy Poehler's Smart Girls, Vogue, the Pennsylvania Gazette, and the Observer (in addition to Refinery29 and Poets and Writers that you mentioned above) with additional mentions of her (or her book) in The Guardian, Publishers Weekly, and Lifehacker. Is there a rule of thumb number where it will be enough?

Thanks again for your help! Wikipedian339 (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Berklee College of Music alumni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Robinson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]