User talk:Jamesparticular

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony DiMoro (February 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 Kikichugirl 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:Anthony DiMoro 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 real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— kikichugirl ^speak up! 09:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Jamesparticular, 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! — kikichugirl ^speak up! 09:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Jamesparticular. 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 David Biddulph (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Jamesparticular, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony DiMoro (February 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 Primefac was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence 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:Anthony DiMoro 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 real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony DiMoro (February 18)

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

AfC reviewers have removed major flaws, but have not fixed the issue of notability presented by this draft. This draft requires independent reliable sources that discuss DiMoro himself (not just list his twitter posts).

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:Anthony DiMoro 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 real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony DiMoro (March 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BenLinus1214 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anthony DiMoro 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 real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BenLinus 1214^talk 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony DiMoro (July 28)

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

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some help on wiki-notability

Hi James, I saw your draft-article on DiMoro. Your prose is kind of okay, your imagelink is broken, and there are some formatting issues. But all that stuff is secondary. Look at WP:SOURCES, you need books/magazines/newspapers/radio/television/etc as the sources. Then, you need those sources to be written by some independent journalist, and somebody that is not DiMoro's boss (nor himself) (nor his employe) (nor his kins) (nor his friends). Last but most difficult to achieve, you need what the independent author writes for their independent book/zine/paper/radio/tv/etc publisher to be specifically about DiMoro with some reasonable depth, which usually means, his name is in the title, and there are a bunch of paragraphs talking specifically about him. Here is an example, of the sort of thing you are looking for:

"DiMoro founds sports startup in Thailand" , by Geraldo Rivera, for FOX News.
"DiMoro: the unauthorized autobiography" , by Stephen King , for Harper-Collins.
"DiMoro sells 20% stake to Warren Buffett" , by staff reporter , for Wall Street Journal

Forbes is not a useful source, despite being a magazine, because they are not independent (DiMoro is a columnist there), and because the stories are not about Dimoro, they are *by* DiMoro (writing about the Miami Dolphins or whatever). It won't help for DiMoro to write about himself, whether for Forbes or for SportsRantz, because he is not independent of himself, any more than Forbes is independent of him. For the same reaosns, this press-release is not an independent source, because it was written by and paid for by Dimoro/SportsRants -- http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10801159.htm

The closest thing I could find to an independent news story by an independent author in an independent publication was this , http://timesofsandiego.com/sports/2015/05/13/tim-sullivan-open-to-u-t-return-hints-hed-field-offers/ That's just an image-credit, with no further information about SportRants, or any about DiMoro at all, so it is independent, but has no useful depth-of-coverage. You need a bunch of independent press-coverage, to write a wikipedia article about a topic. That is what WP:42 means. So unless you have those kinds of sources already, the wikipedia article about diMoro will have to wait, because it is WP:TOOSOON. DiMoro is obviously a successful sportscaster and entrepreneur, but that is not enough for wikipedia to have an article on him. Wikipedia does not write about successful people, it is about reflecting what has already been written about successful people (or whatever topic is under discussion) in books/newspapers/radio/tv/magazines/etc by independent commentators & journalists. (As an aside, wikipedia isn't perfect -- if you see wikipedia articles about people or business that do not satisfy these rules, which is obviously not fair since YOUR article you are working on is being delayed until the wiki-rules are met, you can report the non-compliant articles about products/corporations/people/etc to one of the venues at WP:Q for speedy correction of the mistake.) My advice is for you to keep your draft-article open, and every two or three months, come back and work on it further. You can submit it from time to time, and get additional advice from the reviewers, but until you have at least three in-depth independent sources you will keep getting the same answer, work on the WP:SOURCES. On that note, keep your eyes peeled for the kinds of sources that are needed, and add them to the draft-article as they are found (and as more such sources are written in the future); as long as DiMoro keeps on being a successful entrepreneur/columnist/etc, press-coverage specifically about DiMoro is sure to come.

You can also, while you keep looking for WP:SOURCES about DiMoro, work on the formatting-and-stylistic issues. (And of course there is plenty more stuff on wikipedia that needs improving if you have the inkling -- click the link a few times until you see something that you want to help fix.) For the layout-stuff, see in particular the guidelines at WP:REFBEGIN, WP:PUFFERY, and also WP:ABOUTSELF. You *can* use a *few* things from DiMoro's own writings/website to back up certain factoids, for example, the date of his birth, the city he was born in, the names of his parents, details that are uncontroversial boring factoids. You can also use the link from Forbes to show that he is working there as a columnist, per mutUal-WP:ABOUTSELF. That said, you most definitely cannot use stuff that DiMoro wrote (or his corporation published or his columnist-employer published or similar) to make ANY claims whatsoever about DiMoro being "successful/smart/rich/goodlooking/awesome/good/super" and by the same token "unsuccessful/notsmart/notrich/notgoodlooking/unawesoem/notgood/notsuper" because those kinds of claims are not boring factoids, they are evaluative claims, which always must be directly backed up by a paraphrased sentence found in an independent wiki-reliable published source (see hypothetical examples above such as WSJ/HarperCollins/FOX and similar). Make sense?

It may only take six months for you to dig up enough proper sourcing (book/paper/zine/tv/radio/etc) with in-depth independent coverage specifically about DiMoro, or it might take a couple years. Wikipedia has a WP:NORUSH policy, so that is okay. DiMoro is still just getting started with his career, there will be plenty of time to write a good neutral encyclopedic summary of the assessment that his work received in WP:SOURCES. If you have questions, you can click the blue-talk-button and leaev me a message there; good luck, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anthony DiMoro concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Anthony DiMoro, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Anthony DiMoro

Hello, Jamesparticular. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Anthony DiMoro".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony DiMoro (April 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 Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), 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.

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:Anthony DiMoro 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthony DiMoro (April 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 DGG was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), 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:

There is insufficient evidence of notability ,as you have been told several times. The references here are mostly to his own work, not to people writing about him. Please do not resubmit unless you can fix this.

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:Anthony DiMoro 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.

DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anthony DiMoro concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Anthony DiMoro, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 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 Star Mississippi was:

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.

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 User:Jamesparticular/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Jamesparticular/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Star Mississippi 21:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jamesparticular/sandbox

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 User:Jamesparticular/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Star Mississippi 21:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jamesparticular/sandbox

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Jamesparticular/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

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. Star Mississippi 15:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 15:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would I be blocked? I provided citations from verified sources, and simply provided a summary of content for the subject. Respectfully, instead of blocking, perhaps a message to assist would have been more fruitful. Jamesparticular (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]