User talk:Oompaloompa1971

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

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.

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Insufficiently referenced. (Also note that NY Post and The Sun are not considered reliable sources.) No real evidence of notability.

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:David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Oompaloompa1971! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This BLP needs to be fully sourced. Some portions (especially the total earnings) are unsourced.

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:David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) 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.

Toadette^Edit! 11:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft copy was submitted to AFC on 26 April in order to contest the cutting down of the article to a redirect. The decision as to whether to have a free-standing article should be made by a consensus process, such as AFD. My advice is that any editor who thinks that there should not be a separate article should nominate it for deletion, and Redirect can be an Alternative to Deletion.

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:David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at List of Jeopardy! contestants, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant), you may be blocked from editing. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've been going through the articles on Timothée Chalamet and Denzel Washington and substituting instances of "he" or "him" etc. with the actor's name (and sometimes the other way around). What is the purpose of these edits? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun redundancy. Oompaloompa1971 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing it. Endless repetition of the name is pointless, bad writing and makes for a poor reading experience for the reader. Not repeating the name (as long as it is clear who the 'he' or 'she' refers to) is infinitely superior. In other observations, please stop moving the punctuation on quotes (per WP:LQ), and stop moving "however" to the start of a sentence: in nine out of ten times, it's a grammatical faux pas to start a sentence with 'however'. you should also look at WP:NUMBERS, and not mix up number as numerals and words in close proximity. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! — Gor1995 𝄞 18:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add an edit summary with your edits, to explain why you are making changes. Your edits have been reverted because it was not clear to other editors that they were an improvement. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Newton

In your edit to Cam Newton [1], why have you changed a number of 'access-date' parameters to a seemingly arbitrary date further back in time? That parameter is supposed to record the most recent date the source was checked. Because there were so many of them, I reverted the edit again. Your edit summary says "Added content because it is important [...]" Maybe redo just the adding content and its source part. Other unexplained parts of the edit will likely get the whole thing reverted again. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]