User talk:24GT

This is 24GT'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: sandbox (February 24)[edit]

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

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, L. Chris Stewart, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please do not create duplicate items; this can cause confusion or technical issues and takes up the time of other volunteers.

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 User:24GT/sandbox 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.

Eagleash (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I didn't know. there was a duplicate. I will work on it. 24GT (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 24GT! 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! Eagleash (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash Thank you for the review and the invite. Will do. 24GT (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please feel free to browse the Teahouse and its archives; you can glean a lot of information that way. Unfortunately (!) the invite is a bit of a standard message and the software attaches it in most cases where a first item has been declined.

As to the sandbox draft, I have had something of a reconsider and what I intend to do is to move it to Draft:L. Chris Stewart (2). You can develop it there and re-submit it when you consider it ready. I am of the opinion that is 'better' than the pre-existing draft which has not been edited since last September so will be eligible for deletion in about 2 weeks. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thanks a lot... I don't know, if you know, how awesome it feels to hear "... am of the opinion that is 'better' than the pre-existing draft..." as this was my first submission. :) I am excited about it. I would definitely continue to work on it and will resubmit it once, its done.

I would also keep looking at the Teahouse from time to time, for growth. Thanks a lot. 24GT (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the other one as well. I think it will be good, if I wait for two weeks and that one is deleted , so that duplicate issue don't rise again. What would you suggest? 24GT (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little more tidying of the item. The problems surrounding duplication should not be an issue as of now and if you wanted to re-submit it you could do so. The other item will not 'automatically' be deleted but I have noted it and will request same as of 7 March. This item may well be close to acceptance but I do not know enough about some of the sources to do so and I would not typically review a submission I have worked on. I do vaguely remember my first article! Reviewers were surprisingly kind about it! Eagleash (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... Thanks a lot. Good to know. 24GT (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting, @Eagleash Hope you are doing good. Do you think, it would be a good idea, if I place the link of my submission on any admin's talk page, and ask them to review it? 24GT (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't do that. It would likely make any Admin. look at it with some suspicion. It's taking some time but there is a pretty long delay as there are over 3,000 drafts awaiting review and reviewers often get sidetracked by editors trying any back door method they can think of to get an item into mainspace! Items are not reviewed in any particular order, unfortunately.

On an associated note, you may have seen the request for deletion of the pre-existing draft was declined. A little WP:IAR and commonsense required. This doesn't affect your draft at all. I would like to be able to accept it but as I say I am not that familiar with some of the sourcing: the CNN citation has more about the case than it does Stewart, I think and one(s) from his college may not be independent enough. Give it another 14 days and see what we can do if not reviewed by then. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... Thanks a lot. Sure. Cheers. :) 24GT (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the declination of the deletion request... By the way, I did get WP:IAR, I mean, how would that work? On the policy page, there are not much details. 24GT (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you could guide, regarding, how to increase my understanding of Wikipedia, I have read fundamental policies of WP:NPV, WP:Verifibility, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:RS/P, and I frequently refere to "User:Kuru/fakesources#Blacklisted sites" for cleanups.

I am specially interested in getting a grip on Wikipedia source editing. 24GT (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the IAR page there are a few links to other pages which are more detailed; the one(s) to what IAR means is quite useful; but to summarise (IMO) it basically says do what you think should be done despite what the rules say. Like everything else on Wikipedia it's open to interpretation.

Sourcing can be a minefield; have you also seen WP:RSP which details commonly found sources which can sometimes be considered unreliable? Eagleash (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I will go through the detailed links. Thanks a lot, @Eagleash. Much Appreciated. 24GT (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Zed J Alexander per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zed J Alexander. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: L. Chris Stewart (2) (June 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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.

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:L. Chris Stewart (2) 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.

S0091 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, S0091 you have turned down the above submission for not significant coverage... I don't understand why?

The subject has independent sources, he is covered by Momentum, New york times, Variety, CNN, Howard, etc. These sources are reliable as well, also there were only 19 that were used. I am pretty certain that a lot more can be found. I might have a wrong understanding of the policy, or perhaps I have missed something. Could you please explain what would you regard as significant coverage?

Thanks. 24GT (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the reason for your declining this submission, contradicts your earlier comment on the duplicate. Please, if you could explain, I will be very grateful. Thank you. 24GT (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zed J Alexander: you are currently blocked from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry (investigation page). You are not allowed to contribute to content discussions (as you appear to try, above) without appealing your block first. The block applies to you, the human person, no matter which Wikipedia account you post from. You have retained the technical ability to post on this talk page, but it will be removed if you keep misusing it so.

See WP:GAB for how to appeal. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emily Sachar (July 14)[edit]

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

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:Emily Sachar 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) 21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:L. Chris Stewart (2)[edit]

Hello, 24GT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:L. Chris Stewart (2), 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) 15:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:L. Chris Stewart (2)[edit]

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:L. Chris Stewart (2) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]