User talk:GreyElfGT

• Draft:James_Almanzar - Help Desk talk
• Draft:EJ (Eric Johnson album)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please do not copy any text straight from the sources. The article body is not very long, but a considerable proportion of it is taken verbatim or minimally rephrased from the obituary in Pasadena Star-News. (Marking quoted text as such doesn't automatically make it OK to include; avoid using language such as "long, courageous battle with cancer", it's not neutral and encyclopedic.)

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:James Almanzar 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.

bonadea contributions talk 14:02, 29 August 2022 (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 Thatguy1987 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:James Almanzar 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.

Thatguy1987 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GreyElfGT! 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! Thatguy1987 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2022 (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 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 music-related topics). 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:

Need in-depth critical reviews by reputable sources.

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:EJ (Eric Johnson album) 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) 15:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GreyElfGT. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "James Almanzar".

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. ✗plicit 14:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GreyElfGT. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:EJ (Eric Johnson album), 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) 16:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your improvements. I should also warn you about something that might be annoying later. I noticed you added some reviews[1][2] and these are good quality reviewers that have been featured in many other episode articles. I think this a good thing but I should warn you that in the past some editors were quite aggressivestrict about sources, and deleted such good faith work. I would note in particular that TrekToday was part of TrekNation and good enough quality that people didn't tend to argue about it. There were occasional arguments against Jammer's Reviews but he was syndicated by UGO at the time and was generally considered good quality, and his reviews have been accepted by the people who reviewed Featured articles on multiple occasions. So my warning is that some editors might try to challenge and delete these reviews so it is always good to know the strong arguments to revert and keep them. Keith DeCandido from Tor.com (recently changed to Reactormag.com) is also a good source of reviews. (The AV Club regularly reviewed Star Trek Voyager episodes too.) Other reviewers not from mainstream publications have less strong arguments for inclusion. (I don't add lower quality sources but if they have already been included in an episode article I am in no hurry to delete unless I have other better sources with which to replace them.)

One reviewer I very much appreciated was them0vieblog.com but irrespective of the quality of his reviews and attention to detail editors rejected using him as a reference. His reviews are worth looking at if for example you plan to improve Voyager episode articles, and although you cannot reference him directly you read his detailed reviews and then try to find and reference the same sources he mentions in his articles.

For a while certain people kept nominating low quality Star Trek articles for deletion (sometimes succeeding, Rogue_Planet_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise) was deleted because people claimed no sources were available and I had to write a whole article with many sources before they would restore it). The Star Trek Enterprise episode articles were in even worse condition than most of the Voyager episode articles, and I spent quite a lot of time trying to bring the worst of them up in quality, so that they were no longer easier targets for deletion. It was a quantity not quality effort on my part, as you've probably already noticed. I still poke the articles occasionally.

Umm, yeah, anyway. If you plan on trying to improve the production sections of articles you might want to look through copies of any Star Trek magazines you can find in the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/magazine_rack and the books in their digital library section might also be helpful, you only need to create a free account and register and then you can access all kinds of books that might be useful like The Star trek encyclopedia

Thanks for reading. Best of luck with your edits. -- 109.79.160.15 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]