Filmmakerjohnb

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Strange Case of Dr. H.H. Holmes.
• To edit the submission, 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 . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Rushbugled13 (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Strange Case of Dr. H.H. Holmes concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Strange Case of Dr. H.H. Holmes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Strange Case of Dr. H.H. Holmes

Hello Filmmakerjohnb. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Strange Case of Dr. H.H. Holmes".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Strange Case of Dr. H.H. Holmes}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Please be advised

The article that you wrote and posted for yourself has been wikified, that is to say, it has been turned into an encyclopedic article that is not simply a reproduction of your self-authored IMDB material. The page is being monitored by a series of editors that have raised issues with it in the past, and will ensure that you do not return it to be an extension of the self-authored works that appear on your personal webpage and at IMDB.

I edit several articles by individuals much more famous than yourself, and their articles here have faced similar tensions. Here is the solution put in place for those (e.g., a Harvard professor, and founder of tens of companies): (1) Add references you want extracted, to the Further reading section. Editors with neutral POVs will review them, and if the information is useful and noteworthy, they will incorporate it into the article. (2) If you have particular issues with the existing content of the article, then raise it in a new Talk section, at the article. (3) If you wish to suggest further content for the article, then raise it in a new Talk section, at the article, but only after you provide verifiable sources for the information you want added. No verifiable source, no information added.

In this regard, please note. Wikipedia reports not what is correct, necessarily, but what can be verified in other published sources. If you are reported by the NYT, WSJ, etc., as having been borne a crustacean on Alpha Centuri, under a waxing moon, and the truth is that the moon was waning, you will be reported as having been waxed, until those sources offer a correction, or until other sources appear that have gotten in right. This is the nature of encyclopedic writing here.

So, give us sources, full, traceable, verifiable sources—there is a whole list of claimed sources that are said to feature you, that I could not find, and these were pasted into a Talk section for you. But do not edit yourself, please; tell us where to find good material, guide us in Talk, but do not violate NPOV policies any more. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)