User talk:GooseSpoon

This is GooseSpoon'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.

AfC notification: Draft:Lacunicambarus polychromatus has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lacunicambarus polychromatus. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lacunicambarus polychromatus has been accepted

Lacunicambarus polychromatus, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Odie Leigh (June 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 Iwaqarhashmi was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Odie Leigh 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.

Waqar💬 07:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iwaqarhashmi the sources are primary sources from the artist herself. If I'm misunderstanding something, I apologize. GooseSpoon (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:RSPRIMARY, primary sources are generally discouraged and, if used, should be used with caution. Secondary sources are much more preferable. Procyon117 (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GooseSpoon! 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! Waqar💬 07:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please be aware of WP:3RR; if your edits are in dispute you should seek consensus for them on the talk page rather than continuing to revert. — Czello ^(music) 21:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hi GooseSpoon! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Trametes versicolor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Trametes versicolor did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! jlwoodwa (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acanthocephala terminalis

Hi GooseSpoon, as noted above by @Czello in the 3RR topic, you should seek consensus before continuing to revert. You've been making circular references between iNaturalist and Wikipedia, and you have not been gaining consensus before making edits as both reversions here, and flags on iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/61445/flags) can attest.

You have provided some sources, and I appreciate that, but they reference each other, propagating a common name error from insectidentification.org, and the sources themselves have red flags (e.g. http://www.floridanature.org/faq.asp has a non-functioning Contact Us link, and therefore no way to correct bad data on the site. More importantly, that site lists at least 5 other species as having the same common name: http://www.floridanature.org/family.asp?family=Coreidae). This is an example of what this meme is trying to get at. Be critical of your sources before you cite them.

You've summarized a source incorrectly and created a factual error on the Wikipedia page ("...and their hind femora have a flat, leaf-like, appearance" is incorrect, it's the tibia that has the leaf-like flange. The source didn't say femora.)

I sincerely ask you to create drafts and have an experienced editor review them in advance of publishing page changes going forward. This will also probably cut down on the number of edits you need to make to fix typographical and other formatting issues. Michael pirrello (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bibio articulatus

Hi GooseSpoon. I don't see a source given (other than iNaturalist) for your use of Red-legged March Fly as a common name for Bibio articulatus, and you added that common name (which has since been reverted) on iNaturalist.

I searched, but all i could come up with was https://www.paflyfish.com/threads/red-legged-march-fly.23053/ which suggests the use of that common name for a different species, B. femoratus. I am unable to revert your edit because of intervening edits, so manual correction is required. Can you please go remove the common name from the page, or provide adequate supporting documentation for its use? Thanks. Michael pirrello (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Odie Leigh (July 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 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

zero reliable independent sources here.

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:Odie Leigh 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) 15:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Genuine question: how is https://www.berklee.edu/red-room-cafe-939/events/odie-leigh not a reliable source? And what is the difference between sources here and sources for other artists, for example Dr. Dog? GooseSpoon (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advertisement for a gig, it is not an independent source. The Dr. Dog article is VERY poorly sourced and should be tagged as such, see other poor quality articles exist.Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Odie Leigh

Hello, GooseSpoon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Odie Leigh, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 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) 21:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]