User talk:Hillary Chase

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alfred G. Gerteiny (July 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 Sulfurboy 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alfred G. Gerteiny 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Hillary Chase, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Hillary Chase. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 23:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Hillary Chase. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 16:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keith A. Schooley (September 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Keith A. Schooley 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Hillary Chase, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keith A. Schooley has been accepted

Keith A. Schooley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (such as the Teahouse) (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hillary Chase! You created a thread called Problem editing reference section of Keith A. Schooley at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hillary Chase! You created a thread called PS on Problem editing reference section of Keith A. Schooley at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question but it requires some new information. One of the links doesn't work and only you know where you got it from. The other one I'm reluctant to simply add to the article because I'm not sure whether it is acceptable as a source. I'm not sure but maybe your Teahouse question which was archived solved the problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never got an answer. Both these links contain the same exact information as previously when the article was accepted. This is just an update. The links that were there expired or were removed. I'm not sure which link you were referring to but the Murdoch link (which lists Schooley as one of the 7 top whistleblowers and therefore is proof he is in fact a whistleblower) now has a powerpoint that offers the same article. That links to #1 and #10. The second link is to a PDF that appears on The Cost Could Be Fatal website and contains reviews on the book by Chandra Niles Folsom from Amazon that was previously listed online. So there is nothing in those links that is different from before. But I'm not able to properly link up to it on your site. I can supply PDF files for one or both of these references if that is preferable. I'm also asking that someone (perhaps YOU?) can insert these for me because I am not fluent in Wiki. At least I am rather rusty in it. Thanks so much in hopeful advance, Hillary Chase.

I could try. I'm not sure what is allowed. Anyway, you have to post the first PDF link again because it doesn't work.

https://www.auditnet.org/system/.../BuildingEffectiveWhistleblowingPrograms.ppt

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post the link to the Amazon reviews and I took a closer look. Yesterday I didn't realize those were reader reviews. No, I don't think those can be used. You would have to link to reviews by respected journalists.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping. Let me try to clarify. On the Amazon reviews, Dalma Heyn is a well known journalist, former editor of a national magazine and a bestselling author. Eileen Ryan (Winnick)is a media coach for dozens of very well known journalists and Lisa Wexler is a judge and has had a talk radio show covering news for a number of years. I believe those were the reviewers. At least Dalma should be considered a journalist don't you think? In any case this information was accepted when the wiki was first published. This is the same information. Us there a way to attach the pdf link to Murdock here for you? Thank you again, Hillary

Just put the Murdock link here in its entirety. Yes, I should have looked more closely at what it said about Lisa Wexler, but I didn't see a reason to until you said that. She should probably be acceptable. I can't verify anything else because I can't click on links. I am about to get off the computer for the day and I will return sometime tomorrow. Hurricane Florence could have an influence on that but the worst effects are unlikely before late this weekend here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I didn't realize you were in the Florence zone. Hope everything will be okay with you there. Thank you for the Murdoch insertion. Let me also give links to Dalma and Eileen. http://dalmaheyn.com/about-dalma/ and http://www.thewinnickgroup.com/ourClients.html . Thanks again for helping out and stay safe during the storm and its aftermath. Hillary

I'm a little reluctant to use these links. They're not independent so their use is limited. It's the one that start with auditnet.org that I suspect will be all right. As for Florence, thanks for your concern and there has hardly been any wind and the rain has not been all that bad, so far. I'm hearing about a lot of power outages in my area, but I'm assuming things are a lot worse not far away from where I am.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are okay in the storm's aftermath now. Thanks for your help. I will try to get the Murdoch link up which contains the same info as the original link from the same source. HC

Nothing happened here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking twice to the same reference

You asked “Did link #1 make the link on #10 redundant?” at Wikipedia:Help desk, which has been moved to archives and now is available at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 October 20#Help fixing link of existing article.

The answer is: no, it didn't, because it was exactly the same reference – the same publication by the same author, in the same year and linked with the same URL. The only difference was a publisher, but I assumed one publication could not be published by two different organizations, so I've retained the one which was mentioned in PDF you linked in your request. Then I merged the two. Check the article carefully and you'll see the same reference #1 is linked both in lead (after “as a whistleblower”) and at the end of the fourth paragraph (after “as a result of his actions”).

You can also trace them down by going to the reference first: Keith_A._Schooley#cite_note-Building-1 and clicking the little superscript letters ^a and ^b there, which are links to the referencing places. --CiaPan (talk) 06:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse question

Somehow you were not notified about one of your questions being archived. I noticed your request for help had not been fulfilled in the two months since you made the request, and I think I did most of what you asked.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hillary Chase! You created a thread called References for Keith A. Schooley article removed at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hillary Chase! You created a thread called Help inserting links to preexisting article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]