User talk:Squeeps10/Archive 4

Hello, Squeeps10. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Civil War".

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. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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!} 22:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squeeps10. I'm having a hard time figuring out what you were doing with this edit. Could you explain please? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: To be completely honest I'm not sure what happened. I was attempting to modify my own !vote to reflect further research I had done, I must have somehow removed that in the process. Feel free to undo it if you haven't already. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. I've already restored my vote. Rather than trying to undue your edit, which at this point may cause more problems, I would suggest you just go in and manually restore anything you unintentionally changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've restored everything that hadn't already been restored. Thank you for pointing it out. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squeeps10,

I can easily remove the last section on myths to make this article acceptable. I will do that.

I looked at the Wikipedia terms to watch out for and do not think I used any of them (brilliant, legendary, etc.) to posit an opinion.

I tried to include multiple sides of an argument (a world view) for those who oppose mass decarceration, those who oppose decriminalization of marijuana, those who oppose the abolition movement in general, those who oppose Abolish ICE, etc.

I incorporated citations from the Department of Justice, the White House, as well as critics of current policies. Were there specific citations that were a problem?

If would be helpful if you would tell me more specifically the sections, phrases or words that are problematic.

I really did strive for a neutral tone.

Thank you--I hope you can get back to me with more specifics, so I can improve this article for acceptance.

Thank you also for the compliment.Marcywinograd (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With gratitude,

Marcy

Hey @Marcywinograd:, I've gone ahead and reformatted this to remove those gray boxes (leaving everything else the same though). The major problem is that you're giving ways to decarcerate people, rather than simply stating facts. Remove phrases like "can be implemented by", "skyrocketing", and "crushed". Also, instead of section headers like "Overview of Decarceration Efforts", use "Overview of decarceration efforts" (only capitalizing the first letter). Add some internal links, and try to restate as little as possible. I'm happy to continue giving as much advice as I can, but I'm an inexperienced AfC reviewer, so I'll leave the final decision of when/if to promote to someone more experienced than I. Hope this helps. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, when you say "totally unsourced" does it mean that a number of references and Book citations are irrelevant? In addition to secondary sources, let me get a second opinion as well. Goodwillgames (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwillgames, the reason I did not see the references is because they were placed in the wrong spot in the draft, below the template typically placed at the very bottom of a page. If you replace the template. please put it at the very bottom or very top of the draft. And Sulfurboy has declined the draft again. I'm sorry, but if it's declined again you may wish to find an alternative outlet for your article. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your review of Draft:Michael Wang (scientist) as just having a WP:COI is not a valid reason. Many of us may strongly dislike paid editing, but it is allowed in the rules as long as they declare, and the submissions are not promotional etc. Note this issue came up on the AfC talk, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Argonne_National_Laboratories. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KylieTastic, fair enough. Thanks for the heads up. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, I was a little thin on the references. I added three additional secondary sources: 1) TWA – The Building of an Airline, as revealed in the private collection of co-founder Paul Ernest Richter, Jr. 2) a 1929 article from Aviation Magazine 3) an article from the Experimental Aircraft Organization website. I have resubmitted. Thanks, KlausVonVilver (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I usually don't review the same article multiple times, but if you have any more questions about it you can ask here or at our help desk. Good luck! Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S, thanks for all your recent speedy deletion nominations, they really help with cleanup. Have you considered using Twinkle to also populate a CSD log page for your nominations (as an example, mine is at User:UnitedStatesian/CSD log. It is considered best practice to have one if you are doing a lot of CSD nominations; let me know if you need help configuring Twinkle to set it up to populate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: No, I haven't considered it, for the simple reason that I don't believe I've heard of it before. But if it's considered to be a good idea to have one, I might as well set one up. Some help would be much appreciated. Thanks!Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 22:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's all you need to do: 1) Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences; 2) Scroll down to the Proposed Deletion (PROD) section; 3) Check the box next to "Keep a log of all pages you tag for PROD"; 4) Scroll down to the Speedy deletions (CSD) section; 5) check the box next to "Keep a log in userspace of all my CSD nominations"; 6) scroll to the bottom and click on the "Save Changes" button and you're all set.

Let me know if you have any issues with the above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: I've followed your instructions and cleared my browser cache, but I don't have any user subpages with either a CsD or a PROD log...Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Ah, so apparently the page only shows up when I make a nomination, and doesn't show my past ones. Oops. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct: it will automatically capture them all going forward, which is great. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RE: your reference to the previous comment - I have entirely re-written the submitted article since the comment in a more appropriate tone and included several citations for the JJSEA collection including a direct link to the Museum of Modern Art 1951 exhibition of John Sheehan and 2 publications. Just wondering if the criticism could be revised to the updated submission.

This article is naturally still a work in progress and evolving however the submission has been entirely revised into appropriate formatting and includes links to various independent reference points.

I am hoping you might be a little more specific on what parts of the revised article require revision / updating.

Thank you for your time and due diligence in this matter. This is my first and only Wikipedia page to share the life work of my Grandfathers expansive and unique collection.

Sincerely yours, Finn — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJSEA (talk • contribs) 11:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJSEA, you may have totally rewritten the article, but it still has the same problems it did before. Theroadislong has declined your draft again, and makes a good point: just because you know something doesn't make it suited to be put in a Wikipedia article, you HAVE to be able to back it up with reliable sources (you can read up on those at WP:RS). In addition, the only contents of your user page is "This page is for artist John. J. Sheehan curated by the family and estate.", which is a clear violation of WP:COI. That policy, while not a reason to turn down a draft by itself, does carry some pretty hefty requirements. And finally, the excessive disambiguation in the draft's title is unnecessary, Draft:John J. Sheehan (artist) would be the best title to use.

I'll go ahead and add another comment now that I've signed on to my PC for a bit: While attempting to share your grandfather's life work is a noble pursuit, Wikipedia is not the place to do that. I'm unaware of any website that would allow you to do such a thing, but the fine folks over at the reference desk may be able to point you to somewhere where you can. Social media is probably your best bet to share his artwork with the world. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 14:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Squeeps10,

You are tagging stale drafts CSD G13 before they are eligible. Check the edit history for the last edit. They are not eligible until they have been unedited for six months, not any sooner. Please do not be over-eager. It benefits no one to jump the gun. If a draft is eligible on Nov. 10, 2020 12:34 UTC do not tag it at Nov. 10, 2020 11:54 UTC. Being patient is better than having an admin coming to your talk page to scold you! There is no hurry to delete old drafts. We used to just do them all, once a day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Apologies, I had forgotten I had set Wikipedia to display my local time rather than UTC, so I was operating on the assumption those times were being displayed in UTC. Thanks for the reminder, won't happen again. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though, as an addendum, the chances that someone who has not edited a draft in six months (and more often than not has not edited Wikipedia at all in six months) will return to their draft in the ten minute timespan between G13 tagging and official G13 eligibility is slim-to-none. You are technically correct, however. --Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And according to User:Squeeps10/on G13, it's your custom to tag stale drafts an hour before they reach G13 eligibility? I hope this reflects your philosophy when you were a new editor and not currently. As we have discussed today over several talk pages, it is unwise to tag drafts too early. Some admins do not check tagged pages before they delete them, they assume they are tagged correctly. And I hope you change your essay to comply with common practice. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I have reworded the offending part of the essay. I'm surprised you found it, it must've taken some hunting. --SqueePs10 ^Talk_{My edits} 03:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would it be possible to reword your recent comment at WP:VPM to be more accurate and civil? The Community Tech team has a decent record getting to the top few suggestions (2020, 2019), and I doubt using that moniker for the foundation strengthens the argument. Thanks. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprisey, done. You have to admit the nickname was kinda funny though. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 07:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:The Modern Rogue 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:The Modern Rogue, 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 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Squeeps10! Having an article 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! KylieTastic (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]