User talk:Timothy Beck of Torrance

This is Timothy Beck of Torrance'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: sandbox (May 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 Dodger67 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.

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:Timothy Beck of Torrance/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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Timothy Beck of Torrance, 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 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 Robert McClenon 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 general guideline on notability 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

In addition to being inadequately sourced, this draft lacks a proper lede sentence identifying its subject and scope, and appears to be a set of notes rather than a formal encyclopedic draft.

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:Timothy Beck of Torrance/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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 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 Robert McClenon 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 general guideline on notability 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has been declined twice as not supported by reliable sources and is still not supported by reliable sources. It is also still poorly formatted and poorly organized. Continuing to resubmit it is tendentious and may result in sanctions.

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:Timothy Beck of Torrance/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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/sandbox. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop resubmitting the non-notable, poorly formatted, poorly organized draft. Resubmitting it wastes the time of the reviewers and is not about to result in its acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/sandbox.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. This sandbox will never be accepted as a Wikipedia article. Stop resubmitting it. If it is resubmitted again, a block may be requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/sandbox

User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Timothy Beck of Torrance! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 03:33, Friday, May 20, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 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 Dschslava 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 general guideline on notability 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 User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dschslava^Δxparlez moi 06:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Thank you for finally asking User:Cullen328 and me (although your request to me for feedback was misplaced) for feedback, and no longer continuing to push your draft. Please read the feedback from User:Cullen328, and then read it again to see if you have any remaining questions. Unfortunately, since you say that you are nearly computer-illiterate, you are at a disadvantage. We will try to help you to understand, but what we will try to help you do is mostly to understand why you can't use Wikipedia for what you want to use it for. Read the policies and guidelines that Cullen328 sent you to. Also read the policy against original research, because it appears that you want to use Wikipedia as your vehicle for publishing your own research, rather than first publishing it in a reliable source. Wikipedia doesn't work that way; it isn't a vehicle for publishing new research. If you want to publish your own advice or finding as a new article, it will never be accepted. If you want to add your own advice or finding to an existing article, such as oil spill, it also isn't likely to be accepted. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but if you add material to an article that other editors do not think is well substantiated, they will revert your edits. So, if you want to add your own advice or findings to an existing article, first discuss it on the article talk page, such as Talk: Oil spill, but you will need to understand that you may face a lot of resistance because Wikipedia isn't the vehicle for publishing your own findings. If you have any other questions about Wikipedia, you may ask questions about how to use or edit Wikipedia at the Help Desk or the Teahouse, where the latter is oriented to being friendly to new editors (if you start out being friendly). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 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 Ringbang was:

It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous rather than factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission 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 User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ringbang (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 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 Robert McClenon was:

You have repeatedly been advised that submitting this draft in this form will not result in its acceptance. This resubmission is tendentious and may result in being blocked. You were given advice at the Teahouse that this isn't likely to be added to oil spill without reliable sources because it is original research, but it certainly won't be accepted as an article.

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:Timothy Beck of Torrance/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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (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 333-blue 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 general guideline on notability 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 User:Timothy Beck of Torrance/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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

333 -blue 08:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me thank my reviewers and helpers for being patient. I want to narrow to editing, "Oil Spill/Clean-up and recovery/ solidifying" as little as possible, i.e. adding just two words

Under the heading, Oil spill/Clean-up and recovery/solidifying, I would like to add the word, "ice" after the first appearance of the word,"dry" followed by three written references and links to "Oil spill freeze salvage" on the YouTube Heal the Harbor Research Institute channel and to Earth Guard Technologies videos and the word, "and" before the existing text?

I have asked William E, Anderson of Earth Guard Technologies to send me references from newspapers and journals that he may have?

````

July 2016

Your recent edit to North High School (Torrance, California) appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wtwilson3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Praxair, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 11:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mario E. Baur (July 10)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

This professor may be notable, but there is no way to assess notability without references, either to his work or to any academic distinctions. Fix reference error.

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:Mario E. Baur 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Consani

I saw your plea on your user page, but am replying on your talk page since this is the right place for a dialogue. I Googled Chris Consani and I found 173 entries that were all places to buy his work, but not a single source that would provide the necessary documentation to consider him notable under either Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or under the notability guidelines for artists. I would be happy to help write an article if you can find reliable sources that meet our policies. Do you know of any? — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 02:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]