User talk:Harry Van den Bulck

This is Harry Van den Bulck's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Vanden Bulck Bridge (July 5)

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

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. 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please copy the content to the main article about Mr Bulck. It is very unlikely the bridge deserves a separate article.

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:Charles Vanden Bulck Bridge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Charles Vanden Bulck Bridge, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Harry Van den Bulck! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lieutenant Colonel Charles Vanden Bulck (July 5)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

It is not conclusive from the references given that he passes the standard for notability. It would help if the article explained why he is notable rather than just listing out his life.

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:Lieutenant Colonel Charles Vanden Bulck and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lieutenant Colonel Charles Vanden Bulck, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

MarcGarver (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello, I'm Blue Riband. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from [[: Hello, Harry Van den Bulck. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.]]. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Blue Riband► 19:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lol1VNIO. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Draft:Charles Vanden Bulck Bridge—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 19:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the editors pointed out that this bridge subject was very unlikley to make it and that it was better to merge it into the main subject of the person himself.

Can I delete it somehow? It is no longer intended to get published. Harry Van den Bulck (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Copy and paste this at the very top of the page: {{Db-userreq}}. Make sure that you include the brackets. An administrator will delete it. Blue Riband► 19:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Ridge Journal moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Oak Ridge Journal, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions regarding this. Justi yaya 09:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oak Ridge Journal (August 3)

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

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 organizations and companies). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

We need significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because a newspaper existed doesn't mean it would be notable according to Wikipedia standards.

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:Oak Ridge Journal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris,

This article is not less documented than others like the one on 'The Oak Ridger' newspaper

The journal was an essential part of the Oak Ridge community in WO II.

Being published in a secret city where the newspaper was not allowed to leave the MED district its coverage is by nature very limited.

So I hope we can publish it as part of the Oak Ridge and Manhattan Project history.

regards,

Harry Harry Van den Bulck (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Hoboken, New Jersey

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to List of people from Hoboken, New Jersey, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am gradually getting used to any English article or edit being torpedoed by default.

I have no idea what your perception of reliable or verifiable is but maybe your conclusion would be different if the English main subject article was active rather than waiting months for a new review.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_Vanden_Bulck Harry Van den Bulck (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oak Ridge Journal (August 21)

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

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. 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia articles require significant coverage in reliable sources and I'm not seeing that here.

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:Oak Ridge Journal 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.

Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See earlier reaction and comments:

This article is not less documented than others like the one on 'The Oak Ridger' newspaper

The journal was an essential part of the Oak Ridge community in WO II.

Being published in a secret city where the newspaper was not allowed to leave the MED district, its coverage is by nature very limited.

So I hope we can publish it as part of the Oak Ridge and Manhattan Project history.

regards, Harry Van den Bulck (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Vanden Bulck (September 6)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please make sure all statements/sections are sourced. Also see WP:COI.

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:Charles Vanden Bulck 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.

Greenman (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022/09/24 lots of additional references where added on top of existing ones. All information from different sources except for two detected corrected misspellings on the mothers name and missile system are in line. No contradictions where found and a combination of existing articels, letters, interviews and book stories confirm the details. Should there be any remaining reason not to 'trust' certain information than please remove it so the article can go live for his 60th memorial. Harry Van den Bulck (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Vanden Bulck (January 5)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Far too much of the content is not referenced, with several paragraphs without a single citation, begging the question — where is this information coming from? Also, some of the sources cited do not meet the WP:GNG standard of reliable and independent published secondary sources. Please ensure that every material statement is supported by citation to a reliable published source, and that only content thus supported is included. Note also that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, NOTMEMORIAL.

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:Charles Vanden Bulck 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Harry Van den Bulck. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Charles Vanden Bulck, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Oak Ridge Journal

Hello, Harry Van den Bulck. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oak Ridge Journal, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Oak Ridge Journal

Hello, Harry Van den Bulck. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Oak Ridge Journal".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the comments I have abandonned this subject. It seems much more difficult to get English article published than in other languages, even on the same subject with the same sources. Every Wikipedia rule is casted here without any clear evidence (not only on this article) or to the point request for change or modification by the controller. So I decided to concentrate myself on Dutch articles as before. I rather write articles where they are appreciated. Harry Van den Bulck (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles Vanden Bulck (September 25)

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

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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

At the risk of repeating some of what has been said already, here are the reasons why I cannot accept this draft at this time.

Much of the content remains unreferenced, and some of what look like citations refer to sources (unpublished documents, correspondence, interviews, etc.) which do not meet the reliable sources criteria. Although the subject has long since passed away and isn't therefore subject to WP:BLP rules, basic verifiability is still a core requirement, and as it stands, we cannot verify much of this information.

Because of the quality of sources, I'm also not convinced that notability has been established. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage (directly of the subject, not some indirectly related matters) in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. With the possible (?) exception of the 1962 NYT article, I don't think any such source is cited here. (If it could be ascertained that the Oak Ridger's Historically Speaking article, which is cited extensively, is both reliable and independent, that would be a second useful source, but I am unable to make such a judgement. In any case, even two sources aren't enough to satisfy GNG.)

Related to both these points, please note that Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what reliable published sources have said about the subject, citing these sources as you go. That would resolve both issues at once. Instead, I get the feeling this draft is largely based on unpublished sources and original research, with the author essentially writing what they know about the subject, and then adding some references here and there. This is known as BACKWARD writing.

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:Charles Vanden Bulck 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Charles Vanden Bulck

Hello, Harry Van den Bulck. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Charles Vanden Bulck".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]