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'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:
Insufficiently referenced. (Also note that NY Post and The Sun are not considered reliable sources.)
No real evidence of notability.
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.
Hello, Oompaloompa1971!
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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2024 (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 ToadetteEdit was:
This BLP needs to be fully sourced. Some portions (especially the total earnings) are unsourced.
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) instead.
The comment the reviewer left was:
This draft copy was submitted to AFC on 26 April in order to contest the cutting down of the article to a redirect. The decision as to whether to have a free-standing article should be made by a consensus process, such as AFD. My advice is that any editor who thinks that there should not be a separate article should nominate it for deletion, and Redirect can be an Alternative to Deletion.
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.
Please stop doing it. Endless repetition of the name is pointless, bad writing and makes for a poor reading experience for the reader. Not repeating the name (as long as it is clear who the 'he' or 'she' refers to) is infinitely superior. In other observations, please stop moving the punctuation on quotes (per WP:LQ), and stop moving "however" to the start of a sentence: in nine out of ten times, it's a grammatical faux pas to start a sentence with 'however'. you should also look at WP:NUMBERS, and not mix up number as numerals and words in close proximity. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May 2024
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! — Gor1995𝄞18:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 2024
Please add an edit summary with your edits, to explain why you are making changes. Your edits have been reverted because it was not clear to other editors that they were an improvement. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cam Newton
In your edit to Cam Newton[1], why have you changed a number of 'access-date' parameters to a seemingly arbitrary date further back in time? That parameter is supposed to record the most recent date the source was checked. Because there were so many of them, I reverted the edit again. Your edit summary says "Added content because it is important [...]" Maybe redo just the adding content and its source part. Other unexplained parts of the edit will likely get the whole thing reverted again. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possessives and punctuation
Hello. I have noticed that you have been changing possessive nouns that end in an "s" by removing the apostrophe-s. Please note that possessive nouns that end in an "s" do indeed receive the apostrophe-s. The only time the apostrophe-s is inappropriate is when the possessive noun is a plural noun.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brad Stevens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Notre Dame Fighting Irish basketball. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello. I notice you have been changing age lead-ins from "age ##" to "at the age of ##". Those extra words are superfluous and thoroughly unnecessary, and are known as "weasel words".
For instance, "so-and-so did something at age 20" is correct. However, "so-and-so did something at the age of 20" is incorrect.
You also continue to incorrectly move commas and periods, disregarding Wikipedia's rules of punctuation and causing other editors extra work. I ask again that you stop doing it. Thank you. milladrive (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brad Stevens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Conference Finals.
Please stop replacing pronouns with their referents indiscriminately, in addition to the errors mentioned above that you continue to do, including the possessive issue. Remsense诉18:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not sure how to answer the question "why shouldn't I make certain edits indiscriminately?" Because it makes the prose worse, I guess. Remsense诉19:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I stop replacing pronouns with their referents indiscriminately? Because discrimination is required to separate improvements from disimprovements. I see many of your replacements as disimprovements, partly on the grounds that pronouns are useful tools to avoid the awkward repetition of a name throughout an article. Now that you are aware of disagreement from some editors in the community, another reason to stop indiscriminate replacement would be to avoid polarizing your participation as antagonistic. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes. Choosing a name or a pronoun is always a debatable value choice, perhaps depending on frequency of use, rhythm (e.g. alternating; name first in paragraph, pronounds thereafter), or just plain how it sounds or looks. Copyediting is an art. In these grey areas, it's important to be sensitive to feedback from other editors. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouns again
Like others have said above please stop changing every pronoun to the persons last name. It's overkill, we know the persons last name already, no reason to keep repeating it. Yankees1001:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you be willing to explain why you cut the all-time winnings list from 25 down to 10? I initially expanded it because I believed there were enough with totals over $1,000,000 to justify expansion, but wanted to hear your reasoning first before I reverted it back. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"More common" how? The NCAA uses a top 25 to rank the best Division I football and basketball teams. Wikipedia has a Top 25 Report. Heck, the NBA career scoring list on this site extends to the top 50. When there's enough data to pull from, I think it can be worth going beyond the top 10 and including some of the former record holders who are already mentioned and referenced throughout the article's prose. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, plenty of websites do "top 10" lists all the time. I just don't think top 10 lists being "more common" than top 25 lists is a strong enough argument on its own to justify gutting 60% of a well-sourced winnings list from an article. As there have been more notable winners over the years, it's my opinion that we've outgrown the need to limit it to just the top 10. That's all. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pronouns
You should not indiscriminately replace a pronoun with the surname of the person the pronoun refers to. It is incorrect to do so and you are harming many articles. I see I'm not the first person to say this.
You should also always describe what you are doing with an informative edit summary. I see I'm also not the first person to say this. Can you confirm that you are reading and understanding messages about pronouns and edit summaries? Whasha (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk page has three sections regarding pronouns. The Kyle Allen page showed that 'Allen' was added and swapped a few times. I think the point the other editors were trying to get across were the 'pronouns'. Yes, numbers under ten should be spelled out ... but adding Allen while doing it is a slap in the face, you know, sneaky sh**. You do know there's a revision history? Please try to hear them out, they mean well. Give them that much at least. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you would like to add what you do, regarding the 'pronouns', just put it in the edit summary. At least there's a heads-up. Thanks in advance. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:
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:Judson Bergman 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.
