User talk:1112Gumdaddy

1112Gumdaddy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 1112Gumdaddy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cannon-Washburn Hunger Experiment has been accepted

Cannon-Washburn Hunger Experiment, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Noah ^💬 14:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrick Knight (engineer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trim. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facts for New York Parents: Conditions that are Not to be Endured moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Facts for New York Parents: Conditions that are Not to be Endured. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV/OR/ATTRIBUTEPOV/VER

Hi. While I can appreciate the amount of work that's gone into some of your recent contributions (kudos), I really think that you should take a(nother) look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines relating to:

WP:NPOV. Articles are supposed to be neutral and avoid editorial bias. Describing a singer (living or dead) as "promising", venues as "prestigious" and pretty much anything as displaying "extraordinary beauty" is not in keeping with Wikipedia norms. A large number of the words mentioned in the MOS:FLOWERY guideline ("remarkable", "prestigious", "notable", etc) appear in articles that you've recently created. They really shouldn't. Please consider avoiding words like these.
WP:OR. Articles should reflect reliable/verifiable sources and should not "contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". Almost all of the articles you've recently created contain some form of editorial and commentary which, given that few/none of it appears in the sources, can only be read as original research. While our writing doesn't have to be "boring", please try to avoid writing in an editorial and essayist style.
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Where articles DO express or describe someone's opinion, that opinion should be ascribed to someone. While you, partially, did this in the Claude Got article, many of the editorial commentary and opinions expressed in the Patrick Knight article were/are not attributed to anyone. They should be. If they cannot be attributed to anyone, they should not be there.
WP:VER. References are supposed to support the text they are placed alongside. In the (already editorially labelled) "lasting impact" section of the Patrick Knight article, you placed a link to this webpage alongside text which read "His urban planning work in Belmullet created a framework for the town that persists to the present day". The linked webpage barely mentions Knight. Simply stating, in a single sentence, that "Carter hired the engineer and Castlebar-born Patrick Knight to design and plan the new town between Broadhaven and Blacksod bays, a challenging terrain of marshes and polders". This sentence does NOT support this editorial. Nor (even if WP:SYNTH was appropriate) is it possible to interpret anything else in this source as supporting this text. Please do not add "references" next to text that it does not support.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Guiliolopez, I really appreciate your feedback. I am a Wikipedia novice. I could really use more guidance like this. Would you mind if I ask you to review changes that I make in the future? I think I could really benefit your veteran experience and expertise. 1112Gumdaddy (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]