User talk:Neilf72

This is Neilf72'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: William Thomas Drain (August 16)

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

Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neilf72! 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! Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Thomas Drain (August 17)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't know what those citations are, but they cannot be verified. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.

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:William Thomas Drain 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for your feedback. The source of the references I have submitted are for local newspapers at the time. They are achieved in the national library of Australia. NLA. This unfortunately is the only source I can draw from as there is no information anywhere else. I would imagine if this information was published in a newspaper 90 years ago and then ratified by the national Library of Australia it would be hard to say this information is not accurate or correct. At this stage it may only be one source. But this information comes from different newspapers at the time. I have a photo, many newspaper articles. I would think the national library of Australia is not only a credible source but highly reliable establishment for credible and honest information. There is nothing to suggest anything written about William Thomas Drain is not true or unreliable. I am keen to understand why a newspaper article or archives of the national library of Australia are not viable for verification? Neilf72 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles in the archives of the National Library of Australia can indeed be used as sources. It seems the issue here is because you didn't use a recognizable citation format, so it wasn't clear what something like "NLA.news-article00000.0" means. Rather than just dumping a NLA reference number, a reference to newspaper articles should be done using {{Cite news}} template, filling information about the article author, title, date, newspaper, etc. Are these articles accessible in a digitized format on the NLA website? If so, you should also include a url to that, which would be tremendously helpful for the purposes of accessing them in order to verify facts in your draft.

2406:3003:2077:1E60:5BFF:E3BA:A88D:95 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am 52 cut me some slack Neilf72 (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Thomas Drain has been accepted

William Thomas Drain, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your a legend. Thank you very much. Neilf72 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Victoria Park SC (August 20)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:Victoria Park SC 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Victoria Park SC

Hello, Neilf72. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Victoria Park SC, 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) 14:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Victoria Park SC

Hello, Neilf72. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Victoria Park SC".

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]