Jump to content

User talk:Stocatta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alison Morrow (July 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 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.
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.
Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Stocatta! Having an article 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! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I referenced the wikipedia guidelines for notable people and the standard indicates the following qualify:
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."
My subject, Alison Morrow, has two Emmy awards, more than a year apart, and both cited in the article. She also has won a Sigma Delta Chi. Both the Emmy and the SDC are notable enough to have wiki articles.
She also influenced multiple environmental legislation due to her investigative journalism. I added references for some of this.
It seems that she meets two of the three bullets in the guidelines where only one of the bullets would qualify her article.
What am I missing? Stocatta (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alison Morrow (July 19)

[edit]
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:
blogs, YouTube and her own work and websites are not suitable 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.
Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alison Morrow (July 30)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tol was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote 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.
Tol (talk | contribs) @ 14:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've compared this article to several other bio articles and it seems very similar to me. Only the last paragraph seemed to have any adjectives, so I reworded that last paragraph. Do you think that is the problem? If not, could you give me an example of a sensitive that isn't in formal tone? Stocatta (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alison Morrow (August 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary 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.
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.
MurielMary (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify why Alison Morrow does not qualify for a biography. WP guidelines on notable people are as follows:
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."
She two Emmy awards, more than a year apart, and both cited in the article. She also has won a Sigma Delta Chi. Both the Emmy and the SDC are notable enough to have wiki articles.
She also influenced multiple environmental legislation due to her investigative journalism. I added references for some of this. Indeed a Washington law was changed specifically because of her work.
It seems that she meets two of the three bullets in the guidelines where only one of the bullets would qualify her article.
What am I missing? Stocatta (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
, why do I keep having to defend the notoriaty of a person that clearly qualified according to WP guidelines which includes these metrics:
"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."
Should I have to justify a person with two Emmy awards and a Sigma Delta Chi award much less somebody that has been the cause of multiple legal cases relying on her journalism? Stocatta (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her awards may make her notable, but there must still be significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. Interviews do not establish notability; it's unclear if several of your sources are reliable; other sources are merely her reporting. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot the WP guidelines indicate that awards OR historical record are each enough to define notable. Morrow has both. You indicate that the sources are not known to be reliable. I cited the Emmy web sites with her name clearly indicated. Similarly on the SDC award. And both entities have wiki pages. The bear hunting reference on her work influencing law is from a Fox report that cited her and the Center for Biological Diversity which even has its own wiki article. How can each of the sources have wiki articles but when those sources collectively reference Morrow, she is not notable? Each reference can be clicked and followed to see those source pages which are NOT part of her work. I have 22 references and 13 of them are independent of Morrow. Of those 13, 11 are national sources each of which has been used as an independent source on other articles.
    I appreciate your efforts, but I'm getting frustrated by this process when I follow the rules and the rules are subjectively applied to my efforts. I've researched dozens of biographies for comparison and I have far more notable material than most of those I've seen. So why am I being held back on this effort? Stocatta (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the assistance. Can you help me understand something though. I referenced each Emmy separately. I referenced the SDC separately. All three are referenced to the governing body of the award. There are dozens of news outlets that repeat the names of the award winners. But I don't see the need for a reference to every news outlet when I'm proving that the award occurred with the reference to the governing body. One could question the notoriety of the award but we're talking about Emmy's and the SDC both of which have notable articles about the governing bodies. So if the award is notable as evidenced by WP, wouldn't the person receiving the award be notable by inference? The guidelines indicate as such so I thought I was heading down the correct track.
    I reference her work to prove that the works exist. But 13 of my references are not her work, they are referencing her and her accomplishments and are not authored by her or anyone associated with her. All of the references are from sources that have their own WP pages so I figured that was adequate.
    Am I missing the point of the references? Stocatta (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until Wikipedia has a paid staff of editors to spend equal time reviewing all of the millions of pages an articles here, some stuff will get by us. If there are articles that you feel have the same issues as your draft(and I believe there probably is), you are free to mark them or otherwise point them out for possible action. We can only address what we know about.
You are now free to move the draft into article space yourself, but you will run the risk of it being marked with maintenance tags or nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Alison Morrow has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Alison Morrow. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unpaid Volunteer

[edit]

I have never solicited nor been offered any payment for any articles or edits on this platform.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alison Morrow (August 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:
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.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I don't see anything even close to meeting WP:JOURNALIST, therefore notability must be established by the general WP:GNG standards, which require significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. None of the sources cited appears to satisfy these criteria. (Note: things this person has reported on do not count towards their own notability.)

Also, the draft is not written in the neutral, factual tone required of an encyclopaedia entry.

Please address all the issues highlighted in this and earlier comments before resubmitting.
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.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Stocatta. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing, you are the second editor to imply I might be related to or being paid for this article. I've placed a disclosure on my talk page and I've indicated my history as well. This is my first original article after editing for a while on WP. I have no relationship with the subject. I chose the subject based on my personal news consumption. Can you help me understand why I'm being accused of crossing WP policies? Wouldn't articles get cleaned up by other editors even if I was too flowery or personally engaged? I guess I don't yet appreciate the level of scrutiny I'm being subjected to versus some of the vitriol I see in commentary that is clearly biased. I've doing my best to be unbiased and factual in my presentation. But I don't seem to get the benefit of the doubt. Is this level of suspicion among the editing staff normal? Stocatta (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stocatta,
Firstly, I've not implied anything, let alone accused you of anything; I have merely queried. (The above message is a standard canned notice, BTW.)
Secondly, paid editing is only one type of possible COI. I saw that you had already stated you are not being paid for this article, and that's great. I'm inviting you to disclose any other external relationship you may have with the subject of this or any other articles you've edited. If the answer is that you have no such relationship, then again — great. (And if I got my timeline wrong and placed the COI query after you had already somewhere dealt with it, then I apologise for querying unnecessarily.)
I can't speak for others, but the reason why I queried this point is that your edit history and your eagerness to have this article published suggest that you could have a connection with the subject. There could of course be other possible explanations also, many of them perfectly acceptable. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stocatta, the problem is more that it's unusual for a user with only 4 edits to try to create a full draft for a living person who isn't notable unless they have a COI w/re that person. We try to assume good faith, but the longer and harder you push back about what experienced editors are telling you about policy, the more suspicious people will find it. Normally the reaction would be disappointment but acceptance that unfortunately, you chose for your first article-writing attempt a subject that is not yet notable. —valereee (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee thank you for the clarification. I would have thought that the "good faith" requirement would push editors to believe my inexperience suggests I haven't provided adequate references, not that nefarious motivations are in play. Indeed, I continue to push back because I'm aware of how much impact the subject has had on environmental policy. And comparing her notoriety to many other WP articles, she easily surpasses them. The only reasonable approach would be to purge other non-notable biographies or allow semi-notable biographies and let the democratic editing process that brought Wikipedia to prominence expand the content through the combined knowledge of the participants. I certainly recommend the latter.
Indeed, my persistence on getting this article published is a reflection on my recognition that my writing style is not adequately encyclopedic and my references are direct sources and not third parties which I simply didn't understand until @Tenryuu explained what I wasn't understanding.
Maybe I'm being hypersensitive since my decision to attempt an article was based on dozens of articles being less notable and less encyclopedic, in my opinion. I felt my writing ability to benefit the community; so, here I am. When the critique of my subject was provided, I simply could not reconcile the commentary with the many articles that don't follow a similar standard. I'm told the issue is lack of reviewers catching these articles before publishing. Unfortunately, if that is the predominate issue, a more liberal topical acceptance is needed along with a focus on accuracy. Arguing notability of someone with two "regional" Emmy's and one national SDC award is clearly a matter of perspective. After all, this is not a person without public visibility. A simple web search of the subject will yield hundreds of pages. I concede that many of these pages were authored by Morrow and not third party references to the pages. So I have to add the third party references to clear that hurdle. However, the exclusion of subjects with this level of notoriety simply limits the opportunity for Wikipedia to be ahead of the curve on data gathering.
Wikipedia is still not generally accepted as an academic and accurate source of information. I'm an adjunct educator and I've been criticized for including Wikipedia material in my curriculum. My experience has been contrary to studies such as this research paper that indicate Wikipedia is less accurate than other sources. So, I would think that editors would want to focus more on accuracy and writing style (I'm learning the ropes on these fronts), and less on subjective measurements that exclude content.
In short, every notable person will start with a history similar to Morrow's. If she stops influencing policy and becomes less prominent, then WP would end up with an accurate article on a "regionally-notable" subject. But, if WP excludes emerging subjects, then Wikipedia risks not being first to press with a notable article. And this "freshness index" is the only way Wikipedia can expand its reach if the accuracy is a perceived concern for readers. So the risk of letting a subject with this pedigree get an article seems much higher than letting the article. through.
After the many edits triggered by my Wikipedia:Teahouse request, I'm convinced the article is now encyclopedic. So the only thing left is to continue editing it until it reaches the subjective level of notoriety being discussed. I am not unbiased. I believe in the stated purpose of Wikipedia and that's why I contribute funds to the project. But my experience has led me to a conclusion that the editors are being a bit narrow on the measurement of notability, or at least inconsistent. Rather than "accepting" my rejections, I'm more driven to get this article published and build up a portfolio to become an editor so I can help steer the direction that I believe will benefit the platform and its readers.
(I'm still working on being more pithy) Stocatta (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only going to respond to your biggest misunderstandings, as I'm travelling with bad internet.
  • my decision to attempt an article was based on dozens of articles being less notable. If you see articles that are for non-notable subjects, the answer is to tag them for notability concerns. The answer is not to add more non-notable subjects.
  • Wikipedia is still not generally accepted as an academic and accurate source of information. Wikipedia should never be treated as an accurate source of info for academic purposes. Wikipedia is a repository of links to reliable sources on a particular topic, with prose that tells what those sources say.
  • I would think that editors would want to focus more on accuracy and writing style (I'm learning the ropes on these fronts), and less on subjective measurements that exclude content. Some editors do focus on accuracy and writing style. Others focus on finding/removing non-notable content.
  • if WP excludes emerging subjects, Wikipedia risks not being first to press. We actively avoid being the first to press. By settled consensus, WP is never and should never be the first to say anything. —valereee (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, thank you for the quick response, but now I'm concerned. Has the community lost sight of Wikipedia's mission or am I totally misunderstanding the words: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/mission/
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." Stocatta (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is what we do. We find reliable sources discussing a topic and we create an article about that topic and publish that article free to all. Voila, educational content developed and disseminated. That doesn't mean anyone should cite that article. It means they should cite the reliable sources we've gathered. We don't even cite to Wikipedia here on Wikipedia.
I feel like we've reached a point where you simply aren't going to believe what I'm trying to help you understand. —valereee (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Morrow

[edit]

Stocatta, I think the problem is that you're defining these as major awards and WP doesn't consider them that. Some awards, all by themselves, are considered enough to prove notability. A Nobel Prize, for instance. A national Primetime Emmy is enough because it receives broad coverage nationally and some international coverage. But in order for us to consider an award enough to confer notability, we'd have to see that award covered heavily, and these awards just don't seem to be reported on outside their industries or local areas. Without an award that all by itself confers notability -- and none of these do -- we need to see significant coverage of Morrow herself in unaffiliated reliable sources, generally a minimum of three and at least two of those from outside her local area.

I know that isn't the answer you want, but this person simply doesn't appear to be notable yet.

Creating an article is a difficult task for a brand-new editor because you first have to understand our policies, and not having worked here before, you're starting from scratch on a fairly steep learning curve. If you'd like to learn more, try WP:Wikipedia Adventure, which is a tutorial on the basics of editing. —valereee (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding refs about stories she wrote or contributed does not establish notability. If no one is writing ABOUT her, what she has written is for naught, David notMD (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC) David notMD (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD I understand that aspect, but I thought that the references from Emmy Awards and Society of Professional Journalists where appropriate references. Now I'm being taught that they are inadequate. So now I will start collecting references on the many legislative and legal challenges that were initiated by Morrow's work. I disagree with the community that having these three awards is not adequate notoriety since these awards purpose is to expose notoriety. And having three is rare among journalists and notable in its own right. But I will acquiesce and add more references related to her work rather than about her work. Stocatta (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The awards should stay, but those do not contribute to what Wikipedia considers notability, even though Wikipedia has not managed to create guidelines on what makes an award notable (see Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals) for an essay of the topic). As I mentioned previously, stating and referencing what she has written does not contribute to notability, even though, like awards, it does help describe her career. I am of the opinion that documenting "legislative and legal challenges that were initiated by Morrow's work." will also not cement notability unless those include content - at length - on how her reporting accomplished this. I did a quickie search on her name +journalist or +reporter, and I did not see useful refs. Good luck to you, but understand that this may fail. David notMD (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at refs, some are by her (again, not contributing), but others are not by her, and do not even mention her name (example: press releases about bear hunts). On the Talk page of the draft, identify the 3-4 refs you think establish her notability. If reviewers have to sort thru bad refs, they are inclined to hit the declined button. David notMD (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Alison Morrow

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Stocatta. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alison Morrow, 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) 09:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Alison Morrow

[edit]

Hello, Stocatta. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alison Morrow".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

[edit]

Information icon Hi Stocatta! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Black Lives Matter that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very 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. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Generalrelative (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok, my bad. But the information is still valid so I'll repost without the "minor". Stocatta (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't why I reverted you. See the article talk page, where this topic has come up many times before. Generalrelative (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so I try to fix the facts of the article and rather than responding to the edits, you sanction me? Is that how this is supposed to work? Stocatta (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notice that everybody has to follow. As noted on the talk page, The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stocatta, you haven't been sanctioned. Like it says in the notice, it's a standard message an "does not imply that there are any issues" with your editing so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Black Lives Matter. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Generalrelative (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Alison Morrow

[edit]

Hello, Stocatta. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alison Morrow".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stocatta&oldid=1122857913"