User talk:Librariabryan

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 27)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Librariabryan/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Librariabryan, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callie House

First, thanks for starting the Callie House article during the Our Story matters Editathon. We are planning an Educational Repair Editathon for the end of April in London, and we are thinking of making work on this article one of our goals. One of the things we are interested in is impact. I checked the stats for visit to the page and noticed that there was a peak around 24th February. Have you any ideas what might have stimulated this? Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting this article on your working list! I just haven't had time to flesh it out. Not sure why use of that article would have peaked on 24 February. Probably myself just proofing it over and over. Librarian Bryan (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I have to bail on Saturday

I updated the meetup page, but I thought I'd drop you a line just to make sure you saw it. I've got a project that is running behind and past its deadline, so I'm gonna have to work Saturday instead. So sorry to bail at the last minute. :\ EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]