User talk:Gsandler

Copyright problems with National District Export Council

Hello. Concerning your contribution, National District Export Council, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.districtexportcouncil.com/index.php?q=node/2. As a copyright violation, National District Export Council appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. National District Export Council has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:National District Export Council and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:National District Export Council with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:National District Export Council.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. HalfShadow 23:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ThinkGlobal: Trade Leads for Importing and Exporting

If this is the first article that you have 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.

A tag has been placed on ThinkGlobal: Trade Leads for Importing and Exporting requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Apologies for taking shortcut on the original post.

Please have a look at this and let me know if it is ok.

gsandler 1820, eastern

The ThinkGlobal Institute moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The ThinkGlobal Institute, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. NagalimNE (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The ThinkGlobal Institute (September 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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 organizations and companies). 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 ThinkGlobal Institute 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 ThinkGlobal Institute, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gsandler! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

An article you recently created, Douglas Rigby, is not suitable as written to remain published. An article needs more information and citations from reliable, independent sources to remain in the mainspace. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline, has suitable content and thus is ready for mainspace, place {{subst:submit}} atop the article, then publish. Silikonz💬 22:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglas Rigby (February 6)

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

Hoary (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglas Rigby (May 29)

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

Seems to be a genealogical piece, no evidence subject meets WP:GNG.

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:Douglas Rigby 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.

Sionk (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Douglas Rigby has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Douglas Rigby. Thanks! asilvering (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Great suggestion. I've added three additional sources, all from authoritative publications. One of my original sources could not be verified. Not sure why. I checked it and it's a valid citation. 73.89.211.188 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglas Rigby (August 19)

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

Not seeing any significant in-depth coverage in the sources, just passing mentions.

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:Douglas Rigby 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times reviews are more than "passing mentions."

They discuss the book and the author, Douglas Rigby, in enough depth to more than meet the Wikipedia guidelines.

What's more, several of the citations are not accessible online. Have you checked those?

Finally, his books were published by major publishing houses, further underscoring their "notability."

I think this article provides substantial documentation. Gsandler (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Douglas Rigby has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Douglas Rigby. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Gsandler. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Douglas Rigby, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Citing your own work is considered to be a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Douglas Rigby, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a valid reason.

I disagree with your view the citation represents a conflict of interest.

This is not an article about myself, my family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors. It is an article about someone I happened to write a news story about in the past.

Taken in the context of the other citations I have provided, the citation simply provides additional support for the "notability" of the subject. Gsandler (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing yourself[edit]

Shortcut WP:SELFCITE

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming. Gsandler (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But your self cite does NOT support the content you placed it after? Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

now, you're just being unnecessarily adversarial.

Nevertheless, the position of the footnote has been moved to address your latest concern. Gsandler (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglas Rigby (August 19)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Taking Out The Trash was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously ❓

A full review in The New York Times:

Habits of the Magpie; LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL: The Story of Collecting. By Douglas and Elizabeth Rigby. Illustrated. 537 pp. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company. $5.Rigby, D and E; Lock, Stock and Barrel

https://www.nytimes.com/1944/12/17/archives/habits-of-the-magpie-lock-stock-and-barrel-the-story-of-collecting.html?smid=em-share 73.89.211.188 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the book is notable but not Rigby, it would need more significant coverage than presently though. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Douglas Rigby

Hello, Gsandler. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Douglas Rigby, 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) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]