User talk:ArborChamp

Welcome

Hello, ArborChamp, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Please sign in discussions

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. In addition, pinging requires the correct templates to be used ({{U}}, {{Re}}, {{Ping}}) and your signature for others to be properly notified. See WP:NOTIFY for more info. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenryuu: So this is the correct way?? I am testing it just to be sure. ArborChamp (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArborChamp, yes. I received your notification. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Felischa Marye (May 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

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.

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Felischa Marye, 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:

Wikipedia may not be used as a reference. See the policy against circular references. References to Wikipedia may and should be converted to in-line links. Although links do not take the place of references, which are required, links will facilitate the evaluation of this draft by providing context. This draft should be revised and resubmitted with valid references and without using Wikipedia as a reference. You may ask for advice about references and/or links at the Teahouse.

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 User:ArborChamp/sandbox/Felischa Marye 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 User:ArborChamp/sandbox/Felischa Marye, 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, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ArborChamp! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Felischa Marye (May 23)

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

It does not appear that the subject satisfies either notability guidelines for creative professions or general notability guidelines. This draft may be resubmitted with an explanation on this talk page as to how either guideline is satisfied.

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:Felischa Marye 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:Felischa Marye, 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, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Hello Robert, I hope you are enjoying your Memorial Day weekend. I appreciate you taking the time to review my draft, but I believe that Ms. Marye does fit the general notability guidelines. She is also cited on Wikipedia as the writer and creator of the Bigger Series although I am aware that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, which it is not. Please see here---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigger_(TV_series.)

There are also others who are listed on the same show that have less information and credits but they were deemed notable under the general notability guidelines. See for example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Asher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Patrick_Alvarez

In your response, you stated that the this submission's references do not fit qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in publishedaccording to Wikipedia guidelines if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

But according to Wikipedia's GNG notability guidelines, it states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Please see the below links that are placed in my article that coincide with Wikipedia's GNG guidelines. https://www.bet.com/shows/upfront/news/2018/04/bet-new-and-returning-shows-announcement-2018-upfronts.html https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/will-packers-bet-streaming-comedy-sets-cast-gets-new-title-1227900 https://bossip.com/1781157/bet-premieres-bigger-at-bronzelens-film-festival/ https://deadline.com/2020/02/bigger-renewed-will-packers-bet-comedy-gets-season-2-pickup-1202862349/ https://www.thewrap.com/will-packer-bigger-cast-bet-plus-tanisha-long-angell-conwell/

I would like for the above links and the links below to also be used to refute your opinion that the draft did not have significant independent sources. This is what you referenced in your refusal of the draft---> independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)

You also mentioned reliable,

Which according to Wikipedia "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[

Please see the below links that were placed in the article that I believe give significant evidence that the article should be accepted by GNG standards on the bases that they are not advertisements, press releases, autobiographies, and or from the subject's website.

http://www.jagurltv.com/angell-conwell-talks-about-her-role-on-bigger/https://www.thewrap.com/will-packer-bigger-cast-bet-plus-tanisha-long-angell-conwell/https://shadowandact.com/5-reasons-to-watch-bigger-on-bet-review https://www.bet.com/shows/upfront/content/articles/bigger-season-2.html https://deadline.com/2019/07/bet-networks-bigger-rasheda-crockett-chase-anthony-tristen-winger-tanisha-long-angell-conwell-will-packer-1202656754/ https://www.ajc.com/blog/radiotvtalk/bet-streaming-service-launches-with-will-packer-raunchy-hilarious-bigger/K5bti4ouo0WK64caG8DJhO/

Lastly you state that it does not appear that the subject satisfies either notability guidelines for creative professions or general notability guidelines. The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

According to Wikipedia notability guidlines----> The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

I believe that this article (TOPIC), has gained significant independent coverage or recognition and that this (IS) not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.

My Sources of evidence (MENTIONED AND PROVIDED LINKS) include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

Here is a list of some (NOT ALL) of the provided links in my article that supports my above claim.

https://www.ajc.com/blog/radiotvtalk/bet-streaming-service-launches-with-will-packer-raunchy-hilarious-bigger/K5bti4ouo0WK64caG8DJhO/ https://www.bet.com/shows/upfront/news/2018/04/bet-new-and-returning-shows-announcement-2018-upfronts.html https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/will-packers-bet-streaming-comedy-sets-cast-gets-new-title-1227900 https://bossip.com/1781157/bet-premieres-bigger-at-bronzelens-film-festival/ https://deadline.com/2020/02/bigger-renewed-will-packers-bet-comedy-gets-season-2-pickup-1202862349/ https://www.thewrap.com/will-packer-bigger-cast-bet-plus-tanisha-long-angell-conwell/http://www.jagurltv.com/angell-conwell-talks-about-her-role-on-bigger/https://www.thewrap.com/will-packer-bigger-cast-bet-plus-tanisha-long-angell-conwell/https://shadowandact.com/5-reasons-to-watch-bigger-on-bet-review https://www.bet.com/shows/upfront/content/articles/bigger-season-2.html https://deadline.com/2019/07/bet-networks-bigger-rasheda-crockett-chase-anthony-tristen-winger-tanisha-long-angell-conwell-will-packer-1202656754/ https://www.ajc.com/blog/radiotvtalk/bet-streaming-service-launches-with-will-packer-raunchy-hilarious-bigger/K5bti4ouo0WK64caG8DJhO/https://meaww.com/bigger-bet-creator-felischa-marye-13-reasons-why-character-development-criticism-impacthttps://www.essence.com/love/relationships/bet-comedy-bigger-creator-felischa-marye-explains-why-black-women-friendships-important-on-tv/https://meaww.com/bigger-bet-creator-felischa-marye-13-reasons-why-character-development-criticism-impact ArborChamp (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ArborChamp - In my message declining the draft, I said that an explanation of how the draft meets notability guidelines should be on the talk page of the draft, which is where a future reviewer will see the explanation. I have copied your statement from your talk page to the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Thank you Robert. My apologies that was an oversight on my part. Have a great day! ArborChamp (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, ArborChamp. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 07:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi ArborChamp! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Merge page for Felischa Marye, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Felischa Marye (June 27)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Interviews with the subject of an article or the principal or staff of a corporation or organisation may be used to verify simple facts which are not susceptible to challenge, but they have no value in asserting nor in verifying notability in a Wikipedia sense. They should be regarded as primary sources, which have their place, though WP:PRIMARY shows that their deployment should be limited

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:Felischa Marye 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:Felischa Marye, 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, 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.

Fiddle Faddle 09:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:ArborChamp/Felischa Marye

Hello, ArborChamp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Felischa Marye".

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!} 18:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rolling Out Magazine

Hello, ArborChamp. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rolling Out Magazine, 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) 00:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rolling Out Magazine

Hello, ArborChamp. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rolling Out Magazine".

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. 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!} 23:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rolling Out Magazine (July 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Garsh2 were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:

Terms like "the best" are red flags for WP:NPOV issues. Additionally it may be prudent to read and apply WP:MOSLAYOUT to improve article readability.

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:Rolling Out Magazine 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.

Garsh (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Munson Steed (July 6)

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.

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.

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:Munson Steed 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]