User talk:Statelywaynemanor

Welcome!

Hello, Statelywaynemanor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I see you're interested in California local history! One thing that's really important in Wikipedia is citing sources... so a statement about some plant that cattle cannot eat, needs a citation... If you need help with citation gathering and format, there's a ton of great information in those links above this note; if you need more help, don't hesitate to contact me. I hope you're happy with the citationing I did on your edits to Yreka, California, I saw you took out the paragraph breaks, thanks, I forgot to do that! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello! Statelywaynemanor, and thanks for your edits to California-related articles. You are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross Hammond.
To edit the submission, 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. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross Hammond.
To edit the submission, 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. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento and Comedy

I deleted the article because it didn't say anything about why anyone should care about it. It did not assert any notability. The only sources it cited were the comedy club's own webpage. Maybe this is a famous comedy club that millions of people know about and has dozens of news articles about it. But how should I know? You didn't say any of that.

Tell me why the comedy club is notable -- and first, make sure you know what 'notability' actually means. And if you can't show that it's notable, then why should it have an article? DS (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"That is very harsh." -- It's what happens when you post an article like that to Wikipedia's mainspace.You have to explain why anyone should care. "How about it is the only teaching club in Northern California? And they put on the Sacramento Comedy festival?" -- how was I supposed to know that? You didn't say anything about it. "I think that you are way out of line about this." -- You're free to think that. DS (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with DragonflySixtyseven. The article didn't cite any third-party sources and had no claim of notability. "Festivals" are a common feature of improv comedy organizations; that on its own is not a claim of notability. Huon (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the article has been up for at least a month and was edited by another ... like I said in the previous exchange, with so many minor entries in Wiki.... this seems like a waste of time to me..." - It was up for just under a month before I caught it; there's a huge backlog. The only other edits to it were by bots or by people using automated tools to add category tags. If you feel that there are entries on Wikipedia that shouldn't be included, you're free to tag them for deletion; we can always use more sets of eyes. Make sure to read the instructions on how to do it (for instance, don't blank articles or add the words 'DELETE THIS'). And you're absolutely right, this argument is a waste of time. Glad you agree. DS (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Six years later, The Sacramento Comedy Spot and the Sacramento Comedy Foundation have grown to be quite notable in the region, has received a ton of press and has trained several notable comedians and actors. I'd like to give the article a shot, I think I can demonstrate notability and a neutral POV. I'm an experienced editor but this will be the first (or one of the first, depending on what I complete first) article I'm composing. I assume that whatever was posted previously wasn't the best quality work, so I figure starting from scratch is the best strategy. Any other thoughts on this as you were the one who previously deleted the article? Thanks DFS (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross Hammond concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross Hammond, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross Hammond

Hello Statelywaynemanor. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ross Hammond".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ross Hammond}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of addition of WikiProjects

Welcome back from your long break. Draft:Terry Lee Hale has not been accepted. The backlog at Articles for Creation has grown to such proportions that it may not be reviewed for another month. It has some significant sourcing problems: discogs.com, being user-generated, is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference; self-published blogs, with extremely limited exceptions, are not reliable sources; and the entire career section cites no sources, which probably isn't going to fly given the current rules around biographies of living persons. You may want to try to fix those issues while you wait for a formal review.

The addition of the WikiProjects to the draft is to help reviewers find drafts they're interested in reviewing, and to attract new reviewers to Articles for Creation. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Hale releasing 17 LPs is how he satisfies the notability guidelines for musicians, then put that in the lead.

Procedures have their advantages and disadvantages. If you're disgusted by articles that are obvious autobiographies or are about total nobodies, then pitch in and help clean them up. If the subject is notable, but the sourcing is poor or the writing is biased, those things can be fixed by finding better sources and by editing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has suggestions regarding sources. Subjects that aren't notable can be deleted through Articles for deletion. Doing the necessary research can be time consuming, but the policies and guidelines ensure that readers can verify for themselves whether Wikipedia is an accurate summary of credible sources or just the opinion of some random guy blogging from his mother's basement. It sounds as if you would like Wikipedia to be trustworthy, even if you dislike the procedures. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello, I'm Jd22292. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jeremy Dawson have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like the article deleted, please use WP:AFD instead. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gregori Chad Petree, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 10 Minute Warning, you may be blocked from editing. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Pixies. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dick Van Dyke. JOJ ^Hutton 15:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Terry Lee Hale (January 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 Gbawden 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 don't use their own website as a reference and don't use blogs - see WP:RS

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 Draft:Terry Lee Hale 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:Terry Lee Hale, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Terry Lee Hale (July 4)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails to address the criteria under WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources such as Discogs, the Artist's website, blogs and social media websites are not reliable independent secondary sources and therefore not acceptable.

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 Draft:Terry Lee Hale 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:Terry Lee Hale, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]