User talk:Tilatt

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 24)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people 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 User:Tilatt/sandbox 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.

SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Gerald Gitner, from its old location at User:Tilatt/sandbox. This is because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 23:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gerald Gitner (January 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 RadioFan was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Gerald Gitner 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RadioFan (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Tilatt, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! RadioFan (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I originally submitted this page for approval but was denied due to not having in-depth sources. I then placed in-depth sources and left a message on the reviewers talk page which went unanswered. I then received a message from you stating that I did not need to place that many references on the page. As stated on the original reviewer’s talk page, there are plenty of in-depth sources that cover the subject, including numerous books and featured articles which are included in the page. I mad the page live so that it can be judged on consensus. Please have a look at the message I left on the original reviewers talk page for more details.--Tilatt (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]