User talk:Quatchenerlo

Welcome!

Hi Quatchenerlo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hi Quatchenerlo! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, @Kj cheetham. Quatchenerlo (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A message

Would you be willing to discuss what portions of the Bill Curtsinger article you considered to be written in a "Promotional tone" per WP: Responsible tagging. thanks. You can discuss here on the articles talk page. JakeJakubowski talk

User:Jake-jakubowski, I can't speak for the other editor, and I know you probably won't appreciate my culling of the article. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference, Bibliographies don't include Magazine articles? Even if the subject is known for them? Jake-jakubowski (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles shouldn't be resumes, and thus articles shouldn't have complete bibliographies of everything someone has ever done. Books, sure, since they are likely to have been reviewed, and thus can be said to have acquired notability. Ideally, those reviews etc. should be included to prove the legitimacy of the entry, in terms of correctness and noteworthiness. Articles, that's a very different matter. Paul de Man's article on "The Wild Swans at Coole", for instance, has been discussed plenty in secondary literature, but that's an exception. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the explanation Jake-jakubowski (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, one more question, If I were to break the bibliography out into its own as a 'list' and keep the magazine articles, would that be satisfactory? Or do the rules still apply? Thank yoy for your help on this matter. Jake-jakubowski (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not quite sure I follow. You mean a separate article that is a bibliography of the subject? But aren't we really getting into promotional territory then? Are there secondary sources that prove that the material is relevant? Quatchenerlo, we're still waiting on you to answer here, by the way. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        If listing a photographers published works (Other than books) are considered promotional, I will not make a seperate list. Thank you. Jake-jakubowski (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Drmies apologies for the slow response. My take is that this article doesn't need to have a complete list of everything the subject has written, unless a) these works are discussed/cited in the article; or b) they're "long-form" content such as books, films produced, etc. Quatchenerlo (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jus Allah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Necro. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stan Spit (December 26)

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:

Also IMDB is not a reliable source.

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:Stan Spit 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) 22:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Quatchenerlo! 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! S0091 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cold Duck Complex (December 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 Pichemist was:

Apart from issues of notability (It is imperative that references are about, not just mention the topic at hand) There are also some technical issues with the references.

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:Cold Duck Complex 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.

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 17:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pichemist, thank you for taking the time to review this. I believe I've fixed the technical issues with the references. Some of the articles cited are behind a paywall - is this OK? Regarding notability, nearly all the references I've included are about Cold Duck Complex, except for one or two that are specifically about former band member McCraven but mention Cold Duck. Quatchenerlo (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Pichemist so they see this. S0091 (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quatchenerlo I will try and use the the Wikipedia library to assist you regarding the paywall. I will resubmit and then re-review the article. _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 20:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you so much! Quatchenerlo (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Isaac Fitzgerald (January 8)

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

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mattdaviesfsic, thank you for taking the time to review this. Could you explain why the sources cited in this article are not sufficient to show that the subject has received significant coverage? All the sources are independent of the subject, and sources like the New York Times, the LA Review of Books, and Publishers Weekly are reliable, secondary sources. I would have thought that an author with a book on the Times' best-seller list, and who frequently appears on a popular TV show, would qualify as notable. Quatchenerlo (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quatchenerlo, thanks for replying. I would say that, although the sources cited are good, it would be good to have an even better idea that he is notable. What I mean is, maybe having individual sections for his books, for example - these can include some reviewer's comments and so on - which would give better proof of notability. A little bit of expansion with reliable sources would help verify his notability. See WP:AUTHOR. I hope that makes sense, and do let me know if you have any questions. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. I'll work on building out the article some more and then re-submit. Quatchenerlo (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mattdaviesfsic, I've revised the article in line with your suggestions. Quatchenerlo (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Isaac Fitzgerald has been accepted

Isaac Fitzgerald, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Stan Spit

Hello, Quatchenerlo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Stan Spit, 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) 23:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stan Spit

Hello, Quatchenerlo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stan Spit".

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ali al-Muqri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mulashidi moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Mulashidi. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Quatchenerlo. Thank you for your work on 1955 Yemeni coup attempt. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Quatchenerlo. Thank you for your work on Riyad al-Rayyes. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]