User talk:WikiWhip

Welcome!

Hello, WikiWhip, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --John 00:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, WikiWhip. You have new messages at Orlady's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nancy and John Steinbeck IV.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Nancy and John Steinbeck IV.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. »Petiatil ^{( talk  contribs)} 09:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Your submission at Articles for creation: George G. Receli (April 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 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please provide references to multiple independent reliable sources. This individual is almost certainly notable due to the awards, but it is necessary to document the awards with reliable sources that mention them.

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:George Receli 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) 03:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! WikiWhip, 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "George is currently on tour with Dylan in Japan. I am in contact with him and he will be sending me links from reliable sources, which I will add as external links. We appreciate your helping us comply with community standards." Read the conflict of interest policy. I am inferring that to mean that you are working for George Receli. In that case, you must make the conflict of interest disclosure, and, if you are being paid, you must also make the paid editing disclosure. If you are not working for George Receli, please explain. In the meantime, I am tagging the draft article as having a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not his employee, nor have I ever received any money from him. I am simply collaborating with him in an effort to get his Wikipedia page on line. WikiWhip (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Receli (April 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 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:George Receli 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George G. Receli (April 25)

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Receli won a Grammy as producer of Dockside Sessions, and so satisfies criterion #8 of notability (music). That is the only statement in the draft supported by reliable sources, however. CD Universe does not fit Wikipedia's definition of reliable. Neither does LevonHelm.com, and the draft is misinterpreting that source. Not everyone involved in an album "wins a Grammy" when the album wins a Grammy (see Draft talk:George G. Receli#Awards). If you're having difficulty grasping what a reliable source is and where inline citations are required, you may find it helpful to study some of Wikipedia's best biographies of musicians: Ellis Paul, Bob Dylan, and Steve Lukather. The draft need not be as long or as good as those to be accepted, but cannot be accepted in its current state.

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:George G. Receli 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.

Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George G. Receli (April 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 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 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Not enough 3rd-party (indenpantment) 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 Draft:George G. Receli 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 23:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:John Steinbeck IV, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Meters (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore most of your comments that were lost when I restored the other user's comments, but not the personal attacks. See WP:NPA Meters (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have stated several times that you were John Steinbeck IV's spouse, and that you are his executor and biographer you should read our conflict of interest guidelines WP:COI. Meters (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:John Steinbeck IV. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Stop erasing editor's postings from the talk page. These postings are not vandalism and there is no valid reason to remove them. Meters (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i'm getting tired of this, so I didn't bother to restore your comments that were lost in the undo this time. You can copy them from the edit history yourself if you want to restore them this time.

You should read WP:OWN also. You do not have any special rights to determine what information goes into this article, and you cannot prevent editors from modifying material that you have added to the article. Any edits you made are subject to the agreement you made when you saved the edit: "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." Please stop telling other editors that they should not edit the article. Meters (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buddhist teachers accused of sexual misconduct

If you look at the edits in Sogyal Rinpoche‎ and other pages, you'll see that Joshua Eaton (talk · contribs) actually created and added Category:Buddhist teachers accused of sexual misconduct, yet you are accusing him of whitewashing. I guess you thought that he had removed the categories? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Esowteric said. You laid into a guy who did nothing wrong. I would apologize to him, but that's just me. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi y'all! Totally understand the mix up and appreciate y'all coming to my defense, here. For the record, I not only added Category:Buddhist teachers accused of sexual misconduct but also wrote many of the news stories on allegations of sexual misconduct by Buddhist teachers that are cited on their Wikipedia pages. So I'm hardly whitewashing! Joshua Eaton (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I apologize for thinking you had removed the category. There are constant attempts to clean up these guys' images and I get sick of reverting those edits. I always heard you were on the good side, so I was surprised. Take care and thanks for the support. WikiWhip (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)WikiWhip[reply]