User talk:Cesarromero

This is Cesarromero's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Durbin (October 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 JSFarman was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

To meet the inclusion criteria, the references need to provide extensive coverage specifically about Mark Durbin.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Durbin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JSFarman (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'To meet the inclusion criteria, the references need to provide extensive coverage specifically about-----'

This is true about many of the listings I have read that don't qualify either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Cesarromero, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JSFarman (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Durbin (November 5)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. His acting roles have been occasional insignificant bit-parts. His limited writing career does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Multiple recaps of his witness testimony in a trial amount to nothing, notability-wise. Wikipedia is not for promotion, marketing, or public relations.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mark Durbin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Worldbruce (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Does not meet WP:NACTOR. His acting roles have been occasional insignificant bit-parts. His limited writing career does not meet WP:AUTHOR.'

I agree, and yet this is true about many active listings at Wiki that have not been deleted because the person has little or no notability. Reviewers should be more thorough in their vetting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is also paraphrased into your own opinion ('His acting roles have been occasional insignificant bit-parts. His limited writing career...' ). I have not been able to find any rejection criteria in the Help pages phrased quite this way. Not necessarily admirable qualities for an unbiased review. It comes across as some petty judgement on your behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm Michig. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rebecca Broussard without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wasn't clear at the time that there had to be an explanation at the bottom and when I read further I went back and tried to change that. Thank you for the help. I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't backdate cleanup tags, as you did here and numerous other places. Rebb ing 19:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

**** See above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing.

This is unacceptable. Removing good citations for an article, adding backdated cleanup tags to make an article appear as if it's been neglected for the better part of a decade, and finishing it off with a PROD asserting that the submitted references don't establish notability is fraudulent and disruptive. If you make further edits of this nature, you may be blocked from editing. Rebb ing 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Click on some of the citations I questioned. They are dead links that refer to information that doesn't even apply to the sentence that is cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarromero (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]