User talk:Scottsdesk

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question

Hello, Scottsdesk! I'm Timtrent. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. Fiddle Faddle 19:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I finally be credited with this article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Beaver

I created it. Then later someone basically copy pasted my article and while I could never get it published got it published.

I feel they might have had a inside track to get it through.

I actually rote it because I think she has the bonfides... and I did it totally in a pure sense to create my first article.

I was in close contact with her and when I could not get it published I think someone contacted her and charged her a fee. I cannot prove it... but the exact same article was published suddenly I could not get published.

I would appreciate any edits to get it approved. Scottsdesk (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Evil Beaver (2) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Evil Beaver (2). Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 20:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Beaver

Hi Scott, thanks for message. Given the troubled history of this article and the concerns about original research expressed so far on the draft page, I'll wait and see what transpires there before I unsalt. It only takes a couple of key strokes, and I'd rather wait rather than allow an article that could be deleted again. I've commented on the draft page, and added it to my watchlist. I appreciate the effort you have made, but unsalting is premature before the draft process is complete Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evil Beaver (2) (November 7)

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

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Evil Beaver (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evil Beaver (2) (May 21)

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

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Evil Beaver, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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:Evil Beaver (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Scottsdesk, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! MatthewVanitas (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evil Beaver (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JSFarman 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 are designed to promote or show-off 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Evil Beaver and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JSFarman (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Scottsdesk, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! JSFarman (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evil Beaver (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy 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 are designed to promote or show-off 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Evil Beaver and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Scottsdesk, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scott Winterstein.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Scott Winterstein.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — ξ ^xplicit 05:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evil Beaver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wicker Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cibolo Creek Ranch

This ranch has been around for 170 years. A member of the Chicks got married there in 1999. Fine. At least in part, it is a show business ranch. But please explain why the heck this Wikipedia article should have details about the name change of her band that took place 21 years later? Should we also include any cars she bought or houses she sold since then? How about adding where she had her 20th anniversary dinner? These are details that have nothing substantive to do with this ranch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained my reasons for removing the material quite clearly. I found it difficult to understand your email. Instead of debating by email, we should discuss it here in the open. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your post at User talk:Cullen328

Hi Scottsdesk, I reverted your recent post to User talk:Cullen328 because you added it in the middle of Cullen's own reply to you. You had also added today's time stamp to your original post, from a month ago. Feel free to post again, but please be careful to place your text after the post you reply to. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... I am a little confused on how to add comments or the lets discuss it... Scottsdesk (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cibolo Creek Ranch

You must gain consensus for your edits at Talk: Cibolo Creek Ranch. You are no longer welcome on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong I get a little too critical... Your kinda being a jerk and I take exception to your not helping... making matters more than they are over me adding 10 words about a fact... What is it are you afraid that someone will associate liberals and diversity to the ranch? Scottsdesk (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks..

.. such as the one you posted just above. No personal attacks is policy. You're likely to be sanctioned if you keep calling people names and assuming bad faith. Bishonen | tålk 19:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I will be careful to not do that in the future... Scottsdesk (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thank you. By the way, you can read here about how to indent your comments in a discussion. Essentially, you add one colon more for each comment. Bishonen | tålk 19:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]