User talk:RigsTech34

Hello, R2025kt, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Knitsey (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there @R2025kt, I've reverted your edit at List of CNN personnel as the person you added does not appear to be notable - no Wikipedia article. Knitsey (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. What's happening with Wikipedia at the moment? Just asking. I hope it's nothing bad.

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Dave Brandt (sportscaster), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have created a draft article from my sandbox about WGAL Dave Brandt. I managed to use it in my own words and cited sources along with checking over the wordings I used using Grammarly to be more clear and concise in my own wordings. I hope it works. See what you think.

David Leroy "Dave" Brandt Jr. (February 8, 1919–June 10, 2007) was an American sports broadcaster, host, and reporter. He was notably known as the pioneer of sports on both radio and television, and one of the founders of WGAL, which signed on the air in March 1949, and subsequently moved sports from WGAL radio to WGAL–TV. He inspired future generations of local sports broadcasters who followed in his footsteps.

Early Life

Born in Marietta, PA, and as a native of Marietta, he was the son of the late David E. and Beulah Mae (nee Dyer) Brandt. For most of his life, Brandt considered sports his favorite leisure activity, participating as a spectator and observer. He graduated from Marietta High School. As a player, manager, and coach, he loved baseball (which he would take with his future career at WGAL, which became his forte). After graduation, he entered Elizabethtown College, where in his second year as a sophomore, he expanded his reach with sports by applying for a job on WGAL radio (then WLPA, now WRKY-AM) in Lancaster to be a sports broadcaster. After auditioning successfully, the station manager hired him to be one of its full-time announcing staff and he broadcasted all types of sports, particularly introducing a 15-minute news segment Brandt on Baseball and news for three years until being drafted into the U.S. Army in June 1941 and was overseas until his discharge in 1945.

Career

Brandt returned home to his roots in Lancaster, rejoining the WGAL Radio staff and resuming his duties as a staff announcer, sports director, and, for a short time, as a farm director. In March 1949, television came calling when Brandt took all his duties in sports from WGAL radio to the day WGAL-TV was founded becoming one of its pioneers and founders and became its very first sports director in history where he continued his 15-minute segment Brandt on Baseball after broadcasting the first live shot on WGAL Channel 4 which would later become Channel 8. He considered it his "sports desk". In addition to covering sports frequently, he served as a quizmaster host for the game show Stump Your Neighbor. Throughout his time at WGAL covering sports, Brandt interviewed so many famous sports figures. Most of which were local.

One of his other contributions to sports was when he founded and coached the Red Rose Softball League in 1964. He even managed another team that he named the Channel 8 Cardinals for eight years. In 1975, he was inducted into the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame. A year later, in 1976, he was presented with the George W. Kirchner Memorial Award for his commitment to sports at the Lancaster County Sports Hall of Fame.In 1997, he received the J. Freeland Chryst Award.

Brandt retired from WGAL in 1982 after 45 years in sports broadcasting, 33 of them spent at WGAL-TV as sports director.

Personal Life

He married Phyllis Yeagley in 1951 and they settled in Lancaster, having two daughters, Sally and Ann E, but one of their daughters, Sally Marie Brandt, died in 1972 unexpectedly.

Death

Dave Brandt died of natural causes on June 10, 2007, at age 88. His influence and legacy at WGAL in sports are carried on through future generations of WGAL sportscasters. Nine years after his passing, he was posthumously inducted into the WGAL Hall of Fame in December 2016 along with other WGAL pioneers and founders who shaped the foundation and legacy of WGAL.

References

Categories:

Broadcasting

1919 births

2007 deaths R2025kt (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joan Klein Weidman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Klein Weidman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Joan Klein Weidman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/144065571/joan-haenle-weidman. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Barbara Allen (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/york/name/barbara-allen-obituary?id=13987087. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Nelson Sears requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from snyderfuneralhome.com/obituary/nelson-sears. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Dave Brandt (sportscaster) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://lancasteronline.com/obituaries/dave-brandt/article_46e1e99b-2310-529a-9fd4-c1380bd90334.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your recent edit to WGAL appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WGAL. 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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at WGAL, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I have managed to create a draft article from my sandbox about WGAL Dave Brandt. I managed to use it in my own words and cited sources along with checking over the wordings I used. Using Grammarly to be clearer and more concise, I hope it works. See what you think.

David Leroy "Dave" Brandt Jr. (February 8, 1919–June 10, 2007) was an American sports broadcaster, host, and reporter. He was notably known as the pioneer of sports on both radio and television, and one of the founders of WGAL, which signed on the air in March 1949, and subsequently moved sports from WGAL radio to WGAL–TV. He inspired future generations of local sports broadcasters who followed in his footsteps.

Early Life

Born in Marietta, PA, and as a native of Marietta, he was the son of the late David E. and Beulah Mae (nee Dyer) Brandt. For most of his life, Brandt considered sports his favorite leisure activity, participating as a spectator and observer. He graduated from Marietta High School. As a player, manager, and coach, he loved baseball (which he would take with his future career at WGAL, which became his forte). After graduation, he entered Elizabethtown College, where in his second year as a sophomore, he expanded his reach with sports by applying for a job on WGAL radio (then WLPA, now WRKY-AM) in Lancaster to be a sports broadcaster. After auditioning successfully, the station manager hired him to be one of its full-time announcing staff and he broadcasted all types of sports, particularly introducing a 15-minute news segment Brandt on Baseball and news for three years until being drafted into the U.S. Army in June 1941 and was overseas until his discharge in 1945.

Career

Brandt returned home to his roots in Lancaster, rejoining the WGAL Radio staff and resuming his duties as a staff announcer, sports director, and, for a short time, as a farm director. In March 1949, television came calling when Brandt took all his duties in sports from WGAL radio to the day WGAL-TV was founded becoming one of its pioneers and founders and became its very first sports director in history where he continued his 15-minute segment Brandt on Baseball after broadcasting the first live shot on WGAL Channel 4 which would later become Channel 8. He considered it his "sports desk". In addition to covering sports frequently, he served as a quizmaster host for the game show Stump Your Neighbor. Throughout his time at WGAL covering sports, Brandt interviewed so many famous sports figures. Most of which were local.

One of his other contributions to sports was when he founded and coached the Red Rose Softball League in 1964. He even managed another team that he named the Channel 8 Cardinals for eight years. In 1975, he was inducted into the Pennsylvania Sports Hall of Fame. A year later, in 1976, he was presented with the George W. Kirchner Memorial Award for his commitment to sports at the Lancaster County Sports Hall of Fame.In 1997, he received the J. Freeland Chryst Award.

Brandt retired from WGAL in 1982 after 45 years in sports broadcasting, 33 of them spent at WGAL-TV as sports director.

Personal Life

He married Phyllis Yeagley in 1951 and they settled in Lancaster, having two daughters, Sally and Ann E, but one of their daughters, Sally Marie Brandt, died in 1972 unexpectedly.

Death

Dave Brandt died of natural causes on June 10, 2007, at age 88. His influence and legacy at WGAL in sports are carried on through future generations of WGAL sportscasters. Nine years after his passing, he was posthumously inducted into the WGAL Hall of Fame in December 2016 along with other WGAL pioneers and founders who shaped the foundation and legacy of WGAL.

References

Categories:

Broadcasting

1919 births

2007 deaths R2025kt (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC) R2025kt (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Dave Brandt (sportscaster) while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello R2025kt! Your additions to Joan Klein Weidman have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Other articles that you have created are also problematic in this regard; as you will have seen, I've nominated them all for speedy deletion. You must use your own words when you contribute content, not copy the words of others, even by close paraphrasing. Thank you. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dave Brandt (sportscaster) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Brandt (sportscaster) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Saylor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Saylor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: You really need to talk to this editor; they're continuing to use WP:PUFFERY in articles, along with logged-out editing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbara M. Allen (journalist), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara M. Allen (journalist) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Brian Todd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.cnn.com/profiles/brian-todd-profile#about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from hijacking pages, as you did with Melissa Bell. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Please also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Jalen Barks (Woof) 01:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you I was stuck about how to undo R2025kt (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Andrew Dymburt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.dgepress.com/abcnews/bios/andrew-dymburt-1/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Andrew Dymburt. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Make up your mind; you're giving us a WP:NOTHERE situation. And you're still using WP:FLUFF. Pinging @Sammi Brie: again. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I put her and another back on the list. I thought I was ensuring they were both independent articles that could stand on their own, if you will. Perhaps those words "need to make space" were redundant. Have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The page Kim Lemon of WGAL was connected to the Wikidata item Q135975429, where data relevant to the topic can be added. Still waiting on WGAL Keith Martin to be added to Wikidata item. Just a heads up. R2025kt (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The article Ron Martin (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only uses primary sources from his employer. Nothing else found about this person in a Google search, unable to show independent sourcing needed to show notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ron Martin (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Martin (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Joe Calhoun. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Mekomo (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Joe Calhoun. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mike Hostetler, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at ABC News (United States), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Why did you remove references from the article? Wikishovel (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It was because of the number order they were in because those number references were out of order. R2025kt (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Lots of articles have references that might appear to be numbered "out of order", but that's normal and not a reason to remove them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Next time you want to fix the order of references, ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk or the Wikipedia:Teahouse for help. Wikishovel (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Steve Patterson (journalist) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Sam Brock (journalist). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at Sam Brock. Also Draft:Sam Brock, Sam Brock (journalist) and Draft:NBC News' Sam Brock. This subject has been discussed and deleted after two recent AfD procedures. Gaming the process by creating drafts at various namespaces demonstrates this user is unwilling to follow consensus and can't be trusted with page creation. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I thought I was doing it right. R2025kt (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus, I already deleted early life and education along with personal life because they have no citations to be attached to and I just left the ones that have citations available. R2025kt (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The article Joe Calhoun has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cut and pasted from Draft:Joe Calhoun

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Calhoun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Calhoun until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Boris Sanchez, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Sanchez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Brock, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brock until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, R2025kt,

Thank you for creating Pat Principe.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Quite a number of the points in this article need to be supported by verifiable secondary sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Nolabob}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nolabob (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, R2025kt,

Thank you for creating Karen Travers (journalist).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please address additional citation requirements in the article as marked by fellow editors.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Agent VII}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agent 007 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, R2025kt,

I've been looking over your account tonight and thought I'd pass along two pieces of advice. I see you are working on a lot of drafts. That's great but you might not want to submit them multiple time (5 times on one draft) in the same day. Seeing the same draft with little change being made to it can lead an AFC reviewer to reject the draft instead of decline it. Once a draft is rejected, it can not be submitted again, ever. It's good to keep in mind that there are not an unlimited times you can submit a draft for review, they more you submit a draft, the less likely it will be to get approved. That's not written in policy, it's just an observation from editing here for 13 years.

Secondly, I don't recommend to post notices in an AFD discussion identifying you as the article creator and saying that you really don't want the article deleted. Personal opinions like that do not matter to the closers of AFD discussion and other participant who are trained to focus in on sources supporting claims of notability in the article subject, not whether or not an editor would "like" or "dislike" if an article is Kept or Deleted. Personal appeals are not effective in a deletion discussion, the only way you can sway participants is by finding more and better sources that show significant coverage of the subject. Good luck and do not get discouraged by articles being deleted or drafts being declined...it's part of the journey that one travels when you go from new editor to being an experienced editor and most longtime editors can sympathize with the disappointment you might be feeling. It can help to pay a visit to the Teahouse which is where I would go when I was a new editor and frustrated with all of the rules and guidelines. I really appreciated the support that comes from Teahouse hosts and if it wasn't for them, I would have stopped editing many years ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

SuggestBot is making a list of articles that you might like to edit. You will receive these suggestions soon. In the meantime, you might be interested in checking out the following WikiProjects. If you're interested in a project, feel free to add yourself to the member list and introduce yourself on the project talk page!

Hello. If you want to ask for help at the Teahouse, you don't need to move your draft there. You can just link to it when you post there: Draft:Joe Calhoun. Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I linked the draft to the Teahouse R2025kt (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't making myself clear. In this edit, you blanked most of the article with the edit summary "Moving article to the Teahouse for improvement". I didn't mean to say that you should add a link to the Teahouse in Draft:Joe Calhoun. I meant that if you wanted to ask for help at the Teahouse, instead of trying to move the draft to the Teahouse, you should simply post at the Teahouse, something like "Hello I'm looking for help with Draft:Joe Calhoun, with the following issues". Wikishovel (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission 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.

R2025kt (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

How do I submit a good notability page of WGAL Joe Calhoun from a draft article? Draft: Joe Calhoun. I think it's ready and I think I've added enough. I managed to take out some words that were too wordy and I've added enough references to establish notability. I'm trying to do a draft article right for WGAL Joe Calhoun like I successfully did with Jim Sinkovitz of WGAL. How do I do what I did for WGAL Jim Sinkovitz that I'm missing on WGAL Joe Calhoun draft article?

You need to address the reviewer's comments. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• R2025kt (talk · contribs)
  • User:R2025kt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am fixing the citations on Draft:Joe Calhoun to make sure they are notable. I've added enough sentences. All I need is the correct citations which I am using on newspapers.com which I have access from Wikipedia library and I've used them well.

Thank you. I am contributing to this because I want to do my part and not be removed completely.

R2025kt (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Please stop making so many submissions of this draft. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ok. I apologize for doing so. It's exhausting. R2025kt (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'll look into the draft later today to see if he's notable (worthy of having an article). One thing you should try to do in all your articles is make sure that every paragraph has citations – currently there's some parts of the draft that aren't cited, which is one reason for the declines. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but I cut the draft article and moved it to the sandbox but I'll move it back. R2025kt (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Draft:Joe Calhoun R2025kt (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Please note that pages in your personal sandbox, such as User:R2025kt/sandbox, are not allowed to be filed in categories alongside mainspace articles, per WP:USERNOCAT. The page must stay out of any categories while it remains in sandbox, and this is not an optional rule that you're free to ignore or disregard.

The page has had to be removed from categories by myself or other editors at least 12 times, and you can get into trouble for being disruptive if you keep putting it back into categories. So please do not add the page to categories again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Right sorry about that. I was sort of practicing in order to get it right. Practice makes perfect after all. R2025kt (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Brock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brock (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Logoshimpo (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Janelle Stelson instead.

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:Janelle Stelson 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information but I've waited long enough and it's already put through. Have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Calhoun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Calhoun (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Owen× ☎ 13:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're adding {notability}, {BLP sources}, {citation needed} and other tags to your articles? Tags indicating the article is in poor shape and not notable are only going to make them more likely to be nominated for deletion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You blanked Joe Calhoun, which is in the middle of a deletion discussion, and recreated it at Joe Calhoun (meteorologist). This is disruptive behaviour. Don't do it again. Wait for the deletion discussion to run its course. Wikishovel (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You've also recreated Sam Brock at Sam Brock (journalist), a day after it was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brock (2nd nomination). Did you really think nobody would notice these sneaky, underhanded little stunts? Wikishovel (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I explained the situation under the speedy deletion nomination of Sam Brock (journalist) R2025kt (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry it won't happen. I understand. R2025kt (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sam Brock (journalist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Brock (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wikishovel (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

This subject's article has been twice deleted by process (in the last week) and then recreated yet again at this new titling. I've speedied it as tagged above. Stop recreating it or your future choices may be restricted. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sam Brock. Thanks! Wikishovel (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Just wondering: why did you originally create this draft at Draft:NBC News' Sam Brock? Wikishovel (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm creating this draft because I want to make old and new journalists be truly known by adding how they report on accuracy, honesty, and fairness. A tradition that continues in so many journalists like Sam Brock. He is the best reporter at NBC News. And the truth of the matter is, I am maintaining fairness, balance, accuracy, and notability most of all.R2025kt (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It's the title I'm asking about. Why didn't you create it at Draft:Sam Brock? Wikishovel (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to make sure no confusion is set off with other people having the same name. So, I want to do it better this time with this article draft. R2025kt (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

That's why I want to get it right this time. R2025kt (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

User:BusterD has already warned you about recreating Sam Brock at variant titles. That, and all the rest of the evasive attempts you've previously made, suggest that you're fiercely determined to get blocked by an admin for disruption. Wikishovel (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't want to get blocked this time. I want to make sure the article is right this time for inclusion under draft article because I'm sure I can get it right in my own words. R2025kt (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Bonadea was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This is turning into a time sink. Sources that don't verify the claims in the draft and that don't show any notability for the subject are pointless.

bonadea contributions talk 18:23, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Now ban this user for disruptive editing and wasting everyone's time. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed the article Sam Brock from the draft section because the topic is not notable. Thank you, have a nice day R2025kt (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Ali Arouzi. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sam Brock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Brock_(2nd_nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bambifan111 (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello R2025kt, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Brian Todd, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Todd.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dionysodorus}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dionysodorus (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Paul W 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.

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The WGAL references are unavailable in my region so could not be verified (also PCNTV), but in any event WGAL would be primary sources (his employer). Ref 2 not independent (his old college). Ref 3 is an interview (primary per WP:IV). Not seeing significant coverage about Hubley in reliable independent secondary sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking. Some assertions are unsupported by inline citations.

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:Jack Hubley 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.

Paul W (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi R2025kt. Thanks for the note on my Talk page (it is generally easier to maintain any article-related discussion either in the article's own Talk page or, as here, in the relevant section of the submitter's user Talk page).

I note you have read the rationale for the article being declined. You should now re-edit the article to improve the references so that it includes more reliable and independent sources (if any can be found), and then resubmit it for review. Happy editing. Paul W (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I was able to find two more independent ones I hope will go through R2025kt (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello R2025kt, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Jay Gray (journalist), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Gray (journalist).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dionysodorus}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dionysodorus (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

These pages are thinly sourced and share a puffy tone. Please read WP:Independent sources. Wikipedia is no mere directory of today's media personalities. Talk page warnings above demonstrate you're aware such premature mainspacing of BLPs has been recognized before. And it is a current problem, R2025kt. Please stop. Use your abundant WP:BOLD (for which we heartily commend you, btw) to clean up the messes still in question, especially those linked above. WP:Biographies of living persons is an essential policy which helps wikipedians calibrate precisely how best we source articles on living human beings. WP:BLP. Read it. There will be a quiz later, ok? How you proceed is entirely your choice. Do you understand my question? Do you understand why I'm asking nicely? BusterD (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. So, maybe I was not bold about creating new articles and to be honest, I actually found it to be a new hobby when I started editing and creating new articles, but you're right about what you're saying. After all, I am trying to be accurate as are all people trying to do in these bad times. R2025kt (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your helping. I don't wish to shut you down or even slow you up; just be mindful this is a collaborative endeavor we share. Let's start with addressing all these open processes, shall we? We can go down a list and assess them together if you like. We might triage questionable pages or draftify them. Your page work is pretty good, but a dearth of WP:Reliable sourcing on a BLP is bad, bad, bad, because then we're stuck with using weaker sources (or it looks like Wikipedia is simply making stuff up). For a different perspective please read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Many BLP articles are created and then languish, gradually getting outdated and mis-informative. So let's go gentle unto living people articles, okay? BusterD (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really interested to create an article about myself. R2025kt (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about you. It's about the subjects. Do you think those subjects who have an article about themselves should have any feelings about the article? About how bad these articles are? This is exactly why we have BLP rules. That you don't seem to understand this is precisely why you may not create new articles. You are welcome to clean up the stuff you have written. I've established a one month block duration, but I'll extend the block if sourcing behavior doesn't improve. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to clean up the sources. R2025kt (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I've decided to delete the page of NBC News' Dana Griffin by adding db-author at the top of the page. She doesn't need one. R2025kt (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

And yet you promptly created, in main-space, another BLP article with tons of uncited claims and non-neutral/fluffy writing: Dana Griffin. Your behavior is disruptive. The community's patience will run out soon, and you will be blocked from editing altogether if you cannot follow our site rules. DMacks (talk) 14:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just doing one article for today, but I understand what you're saying. Have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean when is the best time to create new articles myself? R2025kt (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

When you are trusted by the community. And right now you are not. I'm blocking you from creating new pages. Normally we like to assume good faith, but you responded to me above and then repeated the bad behavior. Remember I did ask nicely. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I am taking a break. I hope I'll be unblocked because I am being accurate. R2025kt (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@DMacks: What are the "tons of uncited claims and fluffy wording" in the Griffin article? Perhaps you could call She provided live coverage reporting on strong, raging wildfires, snow in the Sierra, and the complex, dynamic political field a bit "fluffy", but I'm not seeing it otherwise. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Good morning, BeanieFan11. It's all the adjectives. Look for multiple commas and you'll find them. BusterD (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Eh, it's probably advisable to cut the raging wildfires quote and "produced in-depth investigative reports, and engaged with the community through various programs" ("journalist covering breaking, trending news" doesn't sound too unreasonable – I'd assume broadcasters may have different reporters for e.g. "breaking news" vs other types of news). It could be improved, but I've seen worse. What I think is more of an issue is notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

If you didn't see what I decided to do, this article has to be deleted because she doesn't meet the notability guidelines or anything else for that matter R2025kt (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I did see that. What I would recommend to you is that you try to make yourself more familiar with the notability guidelines: subjects need to have multiple, independent (i.e. not from any of the stations they've worked for) stories about them that cover them in-depth. Usually brief things like "Broadcaster moves to this station" (such as the Sacramento Bee source in the Griffin article) won't be considered "significant coverage". In contrast, more in-depth stories discussing the broadcasters' careers – such as some of the things I mentioned in the Dave Brandt discussion – do indicate that a subject is worthy of an article. If you're willing to go back to some of your prior articles and make the tone more neutral (saying things such as "provided live coverage reporting on strong, raging wildfires, snow in the Sierra, and the complex, dynamic political field" is considered a bit too much "puffery") and can demonstrate a better understanding of notability then I'd think you could be unblocked from creating articles. I do like your enthusiasm about broadcasters and hope you're able to stay. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am staying because this is my new hobby to create new articles and trying to be more accurate. Kevin Rigby (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Where do I have access that I was told about on newspapers, books, etc, etc.? R2025kt (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I think next month you'll qualify for access to the Wikipedia Library which has many resources such as Newspapers.com or databases that contain books, if that's what you're referring to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Thank you. R2025kt (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I have decided to have the page deleted because she doesn't need a Wikipedia article. R2025kt (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

"Uncited claims" include about her college career (subjects studied, major, minor, honors). There is a cite, but it does not support anything except the identity of the college. Once there are uncited bio details, and a cite that does not support the bio details, and that all being after the editor pledged to do better with respect to sourcing, the whole thing would need close review and source-checking. Fluffy wording is the usual AI tone, such as commentary on motives or abilities rather than just actions and other facts. The article's been deleted, so I'm basing this on my admin-goggles of the state of the article at the time I wrote that, and am not re-posting the exact quotes from deleted content in this non-admins venue. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you R2025kt (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to do better to create articles with independent, accurate sources to establish notability. I apologize for violating the biographies of living persons by adding them to categories as living individuals. I may need an example of how to find independent, accurate, and relevant citations and references when creating an article about another person to ensure they meet notability guidelines. It just blows my mind about how to establish notability. I have read the guide to appealing blocks, and I believe I can just leave off living people in categories when creating new articles. How about it? R2025kt (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Do not modify declined unblock requests. You are free to make a new request. WP:GAB explains how to do so. --Yamla (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think I'll wait until my block has been lifted in November because I do have good faith to be accurate. R2025kt (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to bring us all up to date, I have blocked R2025kt from creating new pages and new files for one month ONLY. They are free to edit any article and any discussion page, including noticeboards. My block temporarily prevents R2025kt from repeating the single error they've been making over and over: creating new poorly-sourced BLP articles. I was expecting to remove the block myself once R2025kt cleaned up some of their work. They've chosen this path of begging for forgiveness instead of improving their own previous creations. BusterD (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait until my block is lifted until November. R2025kt (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

If in the next 28 days or so R2025kt chooses NOT to add sources to articles they've already created, my block might be extended. Simply waiting one's block out isn't going to be an option. I'd expect them to spend time cleaning up messes they created. BusterD (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, then what should I take out that's not suitable? R2025kt (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: given the #Category:Living people and #October 2025 problems were both after this warning, is it time for CIR-block? DMacks (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I have managed to add some sources to the articles I created in good faith, I assure you. R2025kt (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I added another source for my upcoming article of NBC News' Emilie Ikeda from being at American University which I added in good faith to be more reliable. Just thought you should know. R2025kt (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you removing this category from biographies of living people? Wikishovel (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought if I did that it would remove the block I'm under but now I get why it's important. Thanks for checking. R2025kt (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Bradley (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Bradley (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Wikishovel (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Matt Bradley (journalist), you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

All right I'm sorry. I didn't think something like this would happen. R2025kt (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I thought I was helping out. R2025kt (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of information on Wikipedia to digest and understand prior to being an effective editor. In this case, you weren't helping out by adding an unreliable source, which you probably wouldn't have done if you had checked WP:RSP first, which is a list of sources and their reliability. It isn't an exhaustive list, it just lists sources that have often come up in the past. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I checked that today and thank you for pointing that one out. I had no idea that was there for what's reliable and not reliable. R2025kt (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Pat Principe, you may be blocked from editing. Wikishovel (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok sorry R2025kt (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you put the word his with the words wife, children, and grandchildren please? It could help. R2025kt (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I could if you find a reliable source for it. This is especially important in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The source you cited mentions wife and grandchildren. We're not going to put words in his mouth. Wikishovel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

After I get unblocked and I create a new article, I may have to leave off living people category by just adding their birth date on the infobox section along with saying "this person is". They'll get the idea about that person is still alive. R2025kt (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kerry Sanders and George Lewis (journalist). Stop adding unsourced birth dates and spouses to biographies of living persons. These need reliable sources, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Do you understand? Wikishovel (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I thought I was making things right. R2025kt (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines you recommended to me, and I fully understand about how to cite sources that are reliable, notable and more accurate in good faith and now I'm ready to be unblocked to create new articles in order to establish notability. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You need to create a proper appeal, following the directions in your block message above. Otherwise, just wait it out. You can still edit. You just can't create new pages, and you don't need to create new pages, you need to improve the ones you already created. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you R2025kt (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Emilie Ikeda 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so I thought I wanted to leave off the living people category as a means of doing something different when I spent a few weeks creating this article about Emilie Ikeda because she was notable in covering Taylor Swift and her newly released album and Swift's engagement to Travis Kelce. I wanted to start the article off by saying this person is because she is still alive and that readers would get the idea about what living people is without adding the category including the date of birth. How about this? If I leave it as a shortened article as a stub to go through and other people can help out, it might work. Should it work? R2025kt (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You thought it would be a good idea to put her unsourced date of birth, and lots of other unsourced claims about her, even though you've been warned many times about that, including a warning that the next time you did that, you'd get blocked? Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do better. R2025kt (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I'll make sure I don't add unsourced claims about her birth or anything else for that matter. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I have just put a tv journalist stub words for Emilie Ikeda because it's only a shortened article and I hope I can leave it that way to be submitted. What do you think? R2025kt (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think your current attempted recreation of Sam Brock at your user sandbox is an exceptionally bad idea. @BusterD and DMacks: courtesy ping for the latest in a long-running saga of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wikishovel (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

So I was just practicing to just shorten the article more. R2025kt (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Should I just take out some words? I'm establishing good faith here. R2025kt (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: I'd love to get your take on this. Seems like a WP:NOTHERE situation. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm doing what's right in good faith I looked up and read WP:RSPLIST R2025kt (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I took out the date of birth and the spouse because there are no sourced claims about them. It's how I'm establishing good faith. R2025kt (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

How is it an exceptionally bad idea on my user sandbox? I'm just practicing. R2025kt (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that you've had substantial trouble discerning who is and isn't notable based on significant coverage in reliable sources. The volume of deletion discussion and speedy notifications here bears that out. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Right well if it makes you feel any better, I removed the practice articles from my sandbox completely. It's all gone now. R2025kt (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel a little bit of regret not having them on because Sam Brock and Emilie Ikeda are next generation NBC News correspondents and they are notable perhaps not entirely. R2025kt (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Should we block this user from mainspace until they get a better idea of what they're doing? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I already got a better idea for what I'm doing. I will delete the draft article because it may not happen. R2025kt (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:R2025kt regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikishovel (talk) 10:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I put a db-author on Draft:Emilie Ikeda because it has to be deleted and it doesn't have enough sources to be notable. That's how I'm establishing good faith. R2025kt (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is user:R2025kt. NotJamestack (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 14:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

You have claimed to understand the feedback, but have persisted in the disruptive editing. As such you've lost access to edit mainspace. BLP is a core issue of which you continue to show utter disregard. Star Mississippi 14:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RigsTech34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

User:Star Mississippi and User:Wikishovel are right and I understand their concerns about what I did. I might have an editing problem of BLP. I have a good idea why I was blocked because I may have edited NBC News' Allie Raffa's position as a White House correspondent to a Capitol Hill correspondent. Thank you for reverting that back. I thought I was doing it right in good faith, but it seems I should've known better about being careful when editing on Wikipedia for BLP. You're right about all that. Sticking to the point, I want the block to be reversed because I want to do better by reading the policies about creating and editing an article, perhaps an example of how clear I should make it better. I like to do this as a new hobby. Thank you, have a nice day. R2025kt

Decline reason:

Reviewing the discussion below and your most recent contributions in draft space, I don't think you've sufficiently learned the ins and outs of appropriate sourcing to be working on BLPs, and you do not seem likely to comply with a topic ban. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If unblocked, would you agree to a topic ban from editing about BLPs? CoconutOctopus talk 11:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. R2025kt (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Would that mean learning more about that? R2025kt (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It would mean you are unable to edit any pages in any namespace which are covered by WP:CTOP/BLP, including any biographical articles or sections of other articles discussing living people. Without such a ban I see any appeal unlikely to succeed. CoconutOctopus talk 12:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with CoconutOctopus. I hoped my invitation to avoid making new BLPs would give you a chance to demonstrate self-restraint. I regretted having to block you afterwards, but felt it the very minimum I was required to do to protect the pedia. By your continued actions, you've restricted yourself from writing the very subject matter you tend to enjoy working on. It's always been entirely up to you, but now your available choices have been narrowed by your actions. If you want to stay, you'll need to make changes in your approach. BusterD (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

You're both right. I'm now ready to be unblocked and I regret my actions, and I vow that I will find the right sources to do what's right. I will change my approach by not having the date of birth added as a means of privacy and having living people category left off as a means to not cause any disturbances while creating and editing an actual, true article. This time, I will do what's right. It's how dedicated I am. R2025kt (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

to be clear @R2025kt, if unblocked with a topic ban you would not be allowed to edit about living people. If you do so, you would be blocked again.

Personally I think the best way to show you do understand the issues (rather than say you do ) is to work in draft space. Star Mississippi 15:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked forever. I'll do what's right because I'm staying. I'll work and fix the articles Draft:John MacAlarney and Draft:Jack Hubley in draft space. Thanks R2025kt (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Those are encouraging words. Let's see what happens. I'd like to steer you away from draft BLPs entirely until you can be recognized as trustworthy once again. Even working on historic tv stations' personnel sections may put you at risk for violating the topic ban. Let's find other subject matters which attract you. Your general formatting and your effort following biography style guides are both quite good. How would you feel writing about historic subjects in television news? I could argue that local newspeople of our past might have had more influence than those similarly positioned these days. Same with sportspeople. Plus, there's general demarkation between the long-time dead and the currently breathing. I'm thinking WP:Women in red as one place to find biographical subjects which might interest you. I'm aware of several wikiprojects which would love to give you experience in such efforts. One more suggestion: it would be very healthy for a wikipedian to develop some wikifriendships. In my experience, it's usually good for me to know folks way better at this than myself, and to identify and encourage others much newer than myself. Perhaps go boldly unto random articles and do some formatting and styling. I find it quite relaxing to work on others' pagecreations. BusterD (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I should add: every wiki-linked signature on this page was applied by a human being who made an effort to show you their good faith, hoping you'd join us. If they just didn't care, they may have simply left you alone to eventually get blocked. But each of these humans took a few minutes to network with you. Appreciate that for a bit. BusterD (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll work on the 2 drafts by finding independent sources. Perhaps newspapers.com might help. How do I join the wikifriendships you mentioned for every wiki-linked signature? I am keeping articles short and in general kind of words, but I'll consider what you're saying. I hope I can be unblocked soon. R2025kt (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I should let you know User:BusterD that I joined the WP:Women in red and added my username describing what I'm primarily focused on about women and sometimes men in broadcast tv journalism of news and sports because I'm appealing to their character. R2025kt (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, hope I didn't catch you at a bad time. There is a notification on the article of Erin McLaughlin that notability should be established and I need to get unblocked to establish something because I might have an idea. R2025kt (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You will be unblocked when someone sees your request in the queue and decides they agree @R2025kt. There is no rush and you don't "need to get unblocked" as rushing will lead to a repeat of the same issues that got you blocked to begin with. Please focus on draft space and improving your editing in the mean time. Star Mississippi 18:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

All right well I am on WP: women in red list to establish some people in journalism by practicing in the draft space. R2025kt (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am working in draft space as a way to practice. R2025kt (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to John MacAlarney. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Wikishovel (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Wikishovel I need your help. Can you look over the updated article Draft:John MacAlarney I made some adjustments to please? I managed to add some more words and more sources. Thank you, have a good night. Oh, I almost forgot to say, I didn't submit it yet. R2025kt (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, R2025kt, and welcome to Women in Red. I am happy to see you have already created a number of women's biographies and hope there will be many more. Some reviewers seem to have questioned the notability of some of your subjects. It is always useful to specify achievements in the article lead. You will find more guidance in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you need further assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll let you know what comes up R2025kt (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I know I can't do anything right now, but can someone put a cross on Jim Avila's name on ABC News please? He died a few days ago. Thank you, have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not ask editors to Proxy for you. Star Mississippi 13:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Right. Thank you. R2025kt (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From what I can see, your multiple unblock appeals were declined because you don't understand BLP editing & sourcing. In view of your latest failed AFC submission, I'd recommend deleting this open unblock appeal and concentrate on learning the policies and guidelines. Once you've successfully created several articles through AFC and can prove you won't cause further disruption, you'll have evidence that you understand how to edit articles correctly. Blue Sonnet (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

That's why I'm on WP:women in red list to create articles that I hope will get me unblocked because I don't want to be blocked forever. Thanks R2025kt (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User:SafariScribe. What do you mean by Please adhere to the reviewer's comments? Where are they at? R2025kt (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking it over, I can see that you made no improvement in spite of the reviewer saying clearly and unambiguously why the sourcing is insufficient in the prior decline notice. You just moved one "citation needed" statement into a new paragraph without adding a citation. It's basically the same draft that was previously declined, so naturally it was declined again. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it this time. Have a happy Thanksgiving. R2025kt (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) 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.

Wikishovel (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I thought I put in the correct sources so that it would go through. Did I forget to add something? R2025kt (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I just fixed it now with adding new words and citations. You'll see. R2025kt (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I really hope this works out and you get some really great articles under your belt! Please feel free to re-appeal once you've got a few accepted articles ready for admins to take a look at. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope so too. In the context of your unblock request, resubmitting an unacceptable draft without changing it as suggested by the reviewer looks pretty bad, and doesn't suggest you're ready to create articles in mainspace. What happened, did you forget to hit the button to save your edits? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I added new words to describe her character along with some new citations too and then I hit the resubmit button. R2025kt (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Plus I have to create a few more articles so I can prove I can be unblocked when I fully understood about what editing is about. That's why I had to delete my second appeal request because I knew it wouldn't go through again once I prove I can do it. It's all just a matter of learning. R2025kt (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I am already signed up as a member. R2025kt (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The article Camila Bernal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails the general notability guideline. No coverage of her specifically other than routine announcements.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, R2025kt. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dave Brandt (sportscaster), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 15:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft is not needed because there's already an article about him already written, so I deleted the whole draft anyway. R2025kt (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi R2025kt, in case you miss the comment about Draft:Jack Hubley at the AfC Help desk: a BLP is a biography of a living person. An article or a draft is not a BLP because it has the template {{AfC topic|blp}}, but because the topic is a person who is alive (or recently deceased). In addition, the BLP policy also covers information about living people in articles about other topics as well as other pages, such as drafts and even talk pages, where there is information about a living person. --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

So what you're saying about Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) is that I'm missing some notable stories she's covered right? Oh and should the wording "she puts all her skills to good use" and "her dedicated and persistent health reporting continues" stay on the draft article or should I take it off? R2025kt (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

what you're saying about Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) is that I'm missing some notable stories she's covered right? No, that's not it at all. Notable stories a journalist has covered do not make the journalist notable. As for your second question, those phrases are examples (not the only instances) of promotional wording that don't belong in a Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

In other words, they have to come off. R2025kt (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @R2025kt, I think that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Notability (people) pages will be really helpful for you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, I seem to fail to make myself understood. Those are examples but not the only instances of promotional phrasing in the draft. That means that yes, those sentences should be rewritten, but it is not enough to simply remove those specific clauses. --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Should I take out some of the newspapers.com references too? R2025kt (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There are no newspaper.com references. That's the point. --bonadea contributions talk 22:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @R2025kt, I've taken a look and there are several points that aren't neutral and encyclopedic, like bonadea is trying to explain.

It's a good idea for you to examine it yourself to try to understand why there is a problem - that way, you'll find it easier to fix things.

If someone else tells you what to do, but you don't understand why you're doing it, you'll keep making the same mistake.

Take source #8 and the sentence right before it.

• Is it a neutral sentence or are you saying something positive/negative about the subject?
• Read the Manual of Style link I gave you earlier. Even though you haven't used one of the example words, have you written something that counts as puffery or promotion here?
• Is there a way for you to make this sentence more neutral? How would you do that?

Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I am fixing that citation to cite web and I did read the manual of style link you gave me. R2025kt (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I just used the words essentially and versatility after reading the manual of style link. It is a neutral sentence and I am saying something positive about the subject by appealing to her character in the field of journalism. That's how I made it more neutral. See what you think. R2025kt (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely better! Can you take a look through the rest of the article with the same thought process, there are still a few parts that aren't very neutral and read like they belong on someone's CV instead of an encyclopedia?

There are other things that need fixing, but it's probably best to approach things one at a time. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, like what kind of sentences that don't stand out. R2025kt (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There's one at the end of the lead that's definitely promotional & talking about how great the subject is, as well as a few more in the main section. Her employer will say she's great because they're her employer, but that doesn't really belong in the lead in an encyclopedia. I'd like you to try to find the rest yourself, if you can.

BTW Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but have you thought about getting a mentor for a little while - someone who's experienced in article creation and can give you extra support until you find your feet? I'm good at neutral language but not so good at sourcing.

Find out more at Wikipedia:Mentorship.

You can find a list of available mentors by clicking here, then you can leave a Talk page message for a particular mentor if you think they might be a good fit for you. I'd suggest messaging two, just in case one isn't active or they're already looking after someone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by the end of the lead and a few more in the main section? Is the main section the career info? Is the end of the lead the first paragraph the intro? R2025kt (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep, the intro is called the "lead" on Wikipedia. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the main section the career info and how does it look now? R2025kt (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist) ready for resubmission? I think I fixed enough of a lot of stuff to be neutral. R2025kt (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The lead shouldn't have a citation in it and there's too much unnecessary detail in the last sentence. Check out the blue link.

The biggest hurdle you have is showing that she qualifies for an encyclopedia article, because that's not something that people qualify for just because they're a journalist or on TV. I'm not great at notability but I've got a feeling that problem is still there.

Honestly, creating an article is the hardest thing you can do on Wikipedia. You need knowledge of everything - the manual of style, sourcing, verifiability, notability, etc. You've also decided to dive right in at the deep end by focusing on BLP's to boot.

If you need this much coaching to create an article, it might be best if you change your focus to smaller edits and build up your knowledge first. As an analogy, you wouldn't try to build a house if your only experience was putting up wallpaper!

Look at the number of comments on the draft and how many people are trying to help on your Talk page - this is a lot more than you'd usually see, and it's a sign that you might be aiming a little too high for where you are at the moment. That doesn't mean you'll never get there, just that there's some groundwork you have to do first. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Can I also ask you about your edit summary

here – what does "not passing mentions" mean in this context? --bonadea contributions talk 20:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Passing mention refers to something briefly and casually while discussing other things without giving it significant attention. In other words, when something is mentioned briefly, it's not giving attention to the other thing in front of you. R2025kt (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but your answer has nothing to do with the question I asked. --bonadea contributions talk 22:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea 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 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

See previous comment. Sources are still only hyper-local, notability is not indicated, promotional wording persists (for some reason the draft creator has tagged some of the instances with "by whom", which is rather confusing), references still lack bibliographic info.

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:Susan Shapiro (journalist) 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.

bonadea contributions talk 10:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What am I missing on this article? I read the guidelines on manual style of words and words to watch too. Is there something I forgot to add or is it something I added that has to be taken out? R2025kt (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

They do contain some significant coverage about Shapiro when she joined WGAL along with when she was promoted. So should I remove some of the newspaper citations? R2025kt (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Well they're certainly not helpful if all they do is list her as a journalist, we need sources that discuss her work in significant detail. 17:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

So should I remove the newspaper citations or keep them on? Should I?R2025kt (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at it now. I managed to take out those words you said are incorrect and managed to add a few more of what I hope are correct words. R2025kt (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You appear to either be trolling us or you have a complete inability to understand neutral encyclopaedic tone? Theroadislong (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt Can I please ask if English is your native language - I'm wondering if this might be why you're having trouble understanding neutral tone & phrasing? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes English is my native language. R2025kt (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Am I getting the draft article right this time? R2025kt (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I managed to read WP:NPOV for how to be neutral and how I changed some words with having the word critical and other words to be neutral. R2025kt (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Neither. R2025kt (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Camila Bernal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camila Bernal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 20:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Susan Shapiro (journalist). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Deleted the sentence you left a comment on because there's no citation for it. Otherwise, how else does it look and is it ready? R2025kt (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Nowhere near ready the "Awards and accolades" section contains zero awards or accolades and "a hobby for cooking delicious foods" is laughably un-encyclopaedic. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok I managed to fix that just now. R2025kt (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about...”Added the word informative per WP:NPOV” Theroadislong (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I read the WP:NPOV like you said and I figured if I added informative, it would add a certain point of neutrality. R2025kt (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I cannot begin to fathom how you would come to that conclusion. Theroadislong (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so it is complex but at least it should be ready. R2025kt (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Theroadislong Am I right in thinking that the only possible reason for notability could be the Emmy and would that be Wikipedia:1E (if it counts as a significant award)? I don't see how this meets WP:NJOURNALIST otherwise - I can't access Newspapers.com without a subscription to check the other sources, but I'm not sure they help notability.

Also @R2025kt, remember this rejection - Newspapers.com is a place where newspapers are stored, you need to give the details of the actual newspaper you're giving as the source. You still haven't fixed that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I fix that? R2025kt (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Would adding the details of the actual newspaper I gave as a source help on the draft's talk page? R2025kt (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The details of the actual newspaper should be in the reference. To repeat what I said above, newspapers.com is not a source. If you use an article in, for instance, The Philadelphia Inquirer as a source, the reference should include info about the newspaper and the article's author as well as the article title and the date of publication. A link to newspapers.com is the least important part of the reference. --bonadea contributions talk 08:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly - @R2025kt it's like if you found a book at the library, then gave the library as the source instead of the book.

Imagine you went to "Local library" and found that "Book about Cats" by John Smith was a good source.

You can't give "Local library" as the source, no-one would know which book you're on about! We also can't go to our own library to find the book, because we don't know what we're looking for.

In this case, none of us have an account at Newspapers.com so we have no way of finding out which newspaper you're looking at. That also means we can't try to find that same newspaper elsewhere. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes the only reason for notability is the Emmy I can't access Newspapers.com either and the user seems incapable of filling in the references correctly. Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt This is a second (and a major) problem. It's been a reason for rejecting your draft every single time.

If Susan Shapiro isn't independently notable, she doesn't qualify for an article on Wikipedia and there's no point going any further. There's no point fixing the Newspaper.com references if the article is never going to go live in the first place.

Notability is the very first thing you should be checking before creating an article, otherwise you're wasting your own time by writing an article that's never going to be accepted, and also wasting the time of other editors who have to check your submission. Look at how many people have reviewed your draft and how much time they've spent so far. Did they need to do this, or could it have been avoided if you checked notability first?

This is how you should approach writing a new article:

1. Check subject qualifies for an article (are they notable in their own right)
2. See if they already have an article
3. Start work on draft

Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

R2025kt after months of this, please read WP:COMPETENCE. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I also want to stress again that I really think you should get a mentor. You need one-on-one support with creating an article if you're sure this is what you want to do - having three editors pop in whilst they're working on other things isn't going to give you the level of support you need. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Re the "Emmy award", I thought that was an odd claim since I found no mention of it in any sources. Turns out it's a regional thing, the Mid-Atlantic Emmy Awards; in 1992, a news story that Shapiro presented tied for first place in the "Spot News" category, per this source. Although there is a Wikipedia article about the Mid-Atlantic Emmys, it doesn't really look like grounds for notability to me. --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that - it really looks like this article has no chance of going live because Shapiro doesn't qualify for one. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt you are continuing to be disruptive in taking up volunteers' time while being unwilling or unable to understand and implement their feedback. Please stop or you will be blocked entirely. Star Mississippi 18:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt I'm going to stop giving advice on BLP drafts because I don't think you're ready to be working on something so complicated.

Here is where I recommended that you work on something simpler to build up your knowledge of editing but you didn't respond.

Have you thought about the Wikipedia:Typo Team? They don't just look at typos, but fixing non-neutral wording and other problems. This would be a great place for you to start on the basics and become a better editor!

You can work on drafts in the future, but you really need to learn more about Wikipedia first.

Take a look and see what you think? Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

We're really up against it, R2025kt. Everybody is trying so hard to help you, and it doesn't appear we can do so without protecting the pedia from your edits (blocking). At some point soon, you're going to face further restrictions. Everybody loves your willingness to work and try stuff; most of us are tiring of cleaning up after you. We've tried being kind; we've tried being patient. It's almost time to try being truly impartial. BusterD (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok everyone is right. I have to find an actual source which cannot be newspapers.com all the time as a source. I will find an actual Philadelphia Inquirer citation and I will find a mentor to look over the draft but I'm not blanking it out just yet. R2025kt (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that Susan Shapiro doesn't qualify for an article in the first place. If you go looking for citations and sources for Susan Shapiro, you'll probably be wasting time by working on an article that has no chance of ever getting accepted.

You need to stop trying to create articles for now and focus on the basics by improving existing articles - the Typo Team is great for that, because it finds the problems for you. You can request edits via Talk pages since you're blocked from articles directly. A mentor is a really good idea too.

Admins are worried about your ability to create articles about living people, so I really think you need to stop trying to do that for now.

Don't run before you've learned how to walk. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt I have removed your access to edit the draft about Shapiro. Please move on. I highly recommend @Blue-Sonnet's advice of improving existing articles rather than trying to create drafts when your edits have shown you understand neither BLP nor notability. Star Mississippi 20:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I took User:Blue-Sonnet's advice and requested a mentor to look over the draft. When will I be unblocked from editing? This can't go on forever if I'm being blocked. R2025kt (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You need to show a history of productive editing - since you've been blocked from articles you can do that by submitting edit requests on the talk page of existing articles. I'd stay away from BLP articles for now.

Once you've got a decent history of accepted suggestions, you can use that as evidence for an appeal in a few months - proof that you can be trusted to edit more of Wikipedia and have your block reduced in scope. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have a question. When I do edit requests, it can be on any existing articles I go on right? R2025kt (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep! I'd avoid any articles on living people for now, just to be extra safe & show that you're taking everything seriously.

There are all sorts of other subjects - history, video games, cooking, biology, maths...

Use the tools on the Typo Team's page to find things that need fixing, then use the edit request wizard to ask someone to make the change on your behalf - the page I've linked will explain things in more detail.

There's even a special {{Edit partially-blocked}} template you can use, which will tell the other person what's going on without you having to explain anything!

Start with the edit request wizard first, you can use the special template after you're used to the edit request process and know what you need to type & where to type it.

Keep things very simple until you find your feet - the more accepted requests you get, the better! You can make more complicated suggestions once you get used to things. Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I already went on WP:good article mentorship and requested a mentor to look over the draft. R2025kt (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

That page is for Good Articles, not drafts, so Star had to delete your request. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I am now joining WP:TYPO a member. R2025kt (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

If you don't understand the difference between a draft and a good article, you do not have the competence to edit. Are you trying to be blocked further @R2025kt? Star Mississippi 20:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You have fully blocked yourself, R2025kt. You've done all the work. I asked nicely for you to restrain yourself; you could not. Others have offered guidance; you've been unable to stop. You are now indefinitely blocked from pagespace. You aren't getting unblocked from pagespace. You'll need to find another hobby. This is no joke. You are just a few edits from being locked out of en.wiki entirely. BusterD (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Relax, I will learn how because I am on WP:Women in red and now on WP:TYPO as a member. R2025kt (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No I will not be blocked further because I will do better by learning and that's why I am on WP:TYPO R2025kt (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to join WP:TYPO and I've added my username to your list. Thank you R2025kt (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond 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.

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 01:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Your reaction to all of this feedback @R2025kt was to create another draft. This is absolutely bad faith and disruptive. Please stop before you are forced to stop by a block or topic ban. Star Mississippi 02:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt Why did you submit another draft?? This has all of the same problems that the Susan Shapiro draft had - lack of notability, puffery, Newspapers.com as a source...

• ”...Dimond was a trailblazer who paved the way for other women broadcasters and how she loved doing what she always does: making people better by shining a light on how to be vibrant.” This isn't encyclopedic.
• Three out of six sources are Newspapers.com again.
• There's nothing to show that this journalist is notable.

If you continue to do what you've been told is a bad idea, if you continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, you may end up losing access to Wikipedia completely.

Stop creating and working on drafts and start following my advice here - you've joined the Typo Team so you can begin by submitting edit requests on articles.

You need to start listening to other people. Please. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry I'll start reading the guidelines and take your advice. Have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't want either of our time to be wasted, so stay away from BLP's - that's anything that walks on two legs and is smart enough to solve a crossword puzzle, ok?

You should also avoid articles about politicians. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I have a question. While I read the guidelines, will I be doing any example editing because I can't do any editing due to my being blocked? R2025kt (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I like to do things one at a time without overloading on doing too much in one time. R2025kt (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It's best to make edit requests one at a time, otherwise people will be put off & not want to make the edit. Simple is better with these - just "change X to Y" & use the wizard to submit it for you.Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You have made your first edit request but have NOT followed the instructions correctly, in future please request edits with the template "Edit partially-blocked". Your edit here Talk:Jim Miklaszewski is not a request. Likewise your edit here Talk:Kerry Sanders. See WP:CIR. Theroadislong (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@R2025kt Did you read the instructions on the page I linked? I linked it in two separate comments to make sure you read it. It doesn't look like you've paid attention to anything I've said here at all.

If you can't make edit requests correctly, then I'm afraid there's not much left that you can do at Wikipedia. That's fine, not everyone can edit at Wikipedia & that's nothing to be ashamed of, it's difficult to be able to edit properly here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I did read the instructions of how to make edit requests but I must've put the wrong title. R2025kt (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Draft:Sondra 'Soni' Dimond.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BusterD (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you block their talk page access too? As they're going to be griping about this all over their talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

A blocked user should have the opportunity to tell the pedia how wrong I am to block them. BusterD (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RigsTech34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hi, I have been blocked indefinitely due to the violations of biographies of living persons policy and for editing too. I am reaching out to you that I want to be unblocked because I know what I did was wrong for creating articles under BLPs category because they aren't sufficiently independently notable and for making edits on existing pages I wasn't supposed to, but now after reading all the guidelines, I came to the conclusion that I cannot create Wikipedia articles frequently because of the subject not being notable for one or two events they were seen and that's what I was doing wrong. For editing, I now know that I cannot edit frequently because it will cause disruptions, in this case, I edited existing pages at the wrong time too much causing an overload of reverts by other editors. The point is, I know better after learning all that by only creating Wikipedia articles for only when a subject is notable for an event or two and only when a subject is independently notable and only edit an existing page at the right time when the time is right. So now I am ready to be unblocked because I want to do my part by contributing and helping on Wikipedia with the right notes. By the way, I'm not leaving Wikipedia completely I just have a lot of reading to do and I will not agree to a topic ban after reading about what it is. That's why I'm ready to be unblocked, it's just I have a lot to learn. I will make sure to do things one at a time and not rush things for creating an article and editing. I will listen to the feedback this time.

Decline reason:

Hi.

At the risk of sounding harsh, the comments below do have some truth to them, and I do not think you should focus on editing Wikipedia right now. If you want to go back to editing, I invite you to take a break (at least six months) before diving back into the website, and then take some more time to learn our most important policies and guidelines, notably those that editors above have linked.

Once that is done, you can show us what you have learned by following the instructions at {{Second chance}}, and being very careful to not repeat the same mistakes. If you wish, you can then ping me to ask for the undeletion of one of your drafts, and use it as the article you would like to improve, to prove that you understand the issues and will not repeat them.

To clarify, we are at the point where verbal reassurances will not be sufficient: reviewing administrators will likely ask for concrete proof of improvement, to be convinced that you will not repeat the same mistakes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

R2025kt (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• This should be declined. They listened to absolutely none of the feedback and continued to create them until the system (block) prohibited them from doing so. They do not have the competence or skillset to edit articles and are wasting valuable time. Star Mississippi 17:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
• I don't commonly comment on unblock requests on my own blocks, but IMHO this user talk page speaks for itself. Based on their record of honoring the pledges they've made to date, I have zero confidence unblocking will help the pedia (or the user, for that matter). As an alternative, the user might be able to convince somebody to grant the WP:Standard offer, but that's at least six months from now. Volunteer time is one of our most valuable resources, and this user has several of us unduly spinning our wheels. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'm sorry @R2025kt but you're not able to follow instructions and you're not able to edit Wikipedia competently.

I spent five days and over a dozen posts trying to help coach you and we didn't get anywhere. You keep making the same mistakes over and over again - no matter how many times people patiently explain what's wrong you aren't able to understand & fix the underlying problem.

Your last chance was edit requests. Simple Talk page messages in a set format, to build up a history of productive editing.

• I gave you a link to instructions twice.
• I told you which template to use.
• I told you how to write the requests.
• I told you twice to stay away from living people and edit literally anything else.

You either didn't understand or chose to ignore every single thing I told you. Then you thought the problem was down to using the "wrong title" - I'm not even sure what this means.

I'm sorry, but if you're unblocked the same thing will keep happening.

We're all volunteers and dozens of hours have been spent over the past week alone trying to guide you. It's just not working and we can't keep trying forever - we have to draw the line here.

You need to accept that you're not able to edit Wikipedia. Some people aren't cut out for this & it's totally ok. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red | January 2026, Vol 12, Issue 1, Nos 357, 358, 359, 360 Online events: New: Sports (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run - countries starting with A Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Women who died in 2025 Announcements from other communities Wikipedia turns 25! Celebrate Wikipedia Day on Jan 15, 2026. Tip of the month: Consider becoming a new page reviewer to help reduce the huge backlog of women's biographies. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

User:Monkeysmashingkeyboards I can't do anything because I've been blocked from editing and right now, I have reading to do. Thank you, have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, did @Monkeysmashingkeyboards contact you to ask you to work on the article? I can only see that they've added a general notification, something to alert passing editors that the article could do with some improvement. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Checked my mentee list and they're not on it, so that's out of the question. Only other page we both edited was GoldRomean's talk page, and those edits were 40 days apart, so I'm as lost as you. Cheers! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet @Monkeysmashingkeyboards I think it's just the text in the tag. They didn't realize Please Help is not directed toward them, but rather any of us reading or editing. Star Mississippi 04:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was that, but didn't want to presume unless someone else thought the same thing as me - thank you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello RigsTech34, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Karen Travers (journalist), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Travers (journalist).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Jcgaylor}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Jcgaylor (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ron Martin (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Martin (journalist) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

The article Sahil Kapur has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 02:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Kim Lemon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 02:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

It is reverted because it has plenty of coverage on the article so there will be no deletion nomination at all. R2025kt (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

These are automated templates, you don't need to (and probably shouldn't) reply to them whilst you're blocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Jonathan Dienst has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 07:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Julie Tsirkin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 07:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Priscilla Thompson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 07:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Molly Hunter (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 08:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Kelly Cobiella has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 08:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Meagan Fitzgerald has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists or the notability guideline for people.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 19:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Steve Patterson (journalist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists or the notability guideline for people.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 09:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Kathy Park has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists or the notability guideline for people.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 10:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Natalie Azar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the notability guideline for journalists or the notability guideline for people.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 07:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Patterson (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Patterson (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 01:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Molly Hunter (journalist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Hunter (journalist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 00:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonathan Dienst is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Dienst until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 22:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meagan Fitzgerald is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meagan Fitzgerald until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 01:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Vaughn Hillyard has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable as a journalist or as a person.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 09:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The article Brian Cheung has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable as a journalist or as a person.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 10:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monica Alba is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica Alba until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 21:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, RigsTech34. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Janelle Stelson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 07:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

There is already a page Janelle Stelson already created so this draft can be deleted. The same can be done for Joe Calhoun too. Thank you very much, have a nice day. R2025kt (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)R2025kt (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, RigsTech34. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joe Calhoun, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 08:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

(This message was sent to User talk:R2025kt and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

By the way, happy 25 years to Wikipedia and so much more to come. R2025kt (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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

No significant coverage; most of the sources are hyper-local.

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 it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jack Hubley 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.

bonadea contributions talk 21:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Added Associated Press from 2021 that describes Hubley and his life's work, is it enough for submission this time? R2025kt (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, glad to see you're back - have you thought about getting a mentor to guide you through your first edits after being unblocked? It might be best for you to have some one-on-one support for a little while. You can find a list at WP:MENTORLIST, then pop a message on the Talk page of someone you think might be able to help & ask whether they're happy to support you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Oshwah I hope it's ok to ping you directly as it looks like you're an active mentor - can existing users get a mentor by asking on a prospective mentors Talk page, or is there something else they need to do first?

I want to try to keep RigsTech34 with us as they've got a lot of enthusiasm, but unfortunately ran into difficulty with BLP articles & were blocked a little while ago.

I'm thinking that a mentor is the best way to go (at least for the foreseeable) but I'm not quite sure of the process - can you please advise? Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Blue Sonnet - Yes, they can. Just have RigsTech34 go to their homepage by visiting Special:Homepage. Since they're not enrolled, the page will provide instructions to them in order to turn the feature on. They do this by visiting their preferences, scrolling down to the "Newcomer editor features" settings list, and ticking the checkbox to "Display newcomer homepage" (I'd also recommend having them tick the checkbox to "Enable the editor help panel" as well). Once they save their changes to their user preferences and refresh the Special:Homepage, the feature should automatically assign the user to a mentor and provide them with a bunch of other useful tools for new users. Please let me know if I can answer any more questions for you, and I'll be more than happy to help! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks so much! Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Who is my mentor and what's the name? R2025kt (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you follow Oshwah's instructions above, you'll be allocated a mentor automatically and be able to see who this is once it's happened. Blue Sonnet (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Alaexis, I'm reaching out for your help if the Draft: Jack Hubley is good enough to go through for submission. Thanks, and have a good day. R2025kt (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis - courtesy ping in case it didn't work via the title. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Did the user receive it otherwise? R2025kt (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm never sure with pings & was playing it safe TBH - WP:PINGFIX is a good page to check (I've just found it now!) Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @RigsTech34, this looks like a borderline case. Have you asked the reviewers why they think the sources (the strongest one is probably ) are not sufficient? Alaexis_¿question? 11:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, some of them are hyper-local which is local around the area a lot, but I believe they are right and with that I was able to fill the last sentence where it says citation needed and this time I put an Associated Press citation which is a worldwide reference and a good reliable source I read from the WP:RSP list. R2025kt (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, AP is reliable, but the source is not independent (Associated Press is a news agency, and not a "worldwide reference" – I'm not sure what that would even mean). You'll find the exact same story, in the exact same words, here and here, showing that it is a syndicated story. Please note that not everything published in a reliable outlet counts towards notability in Wikipedia! --bonadea contributions talk 14:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, RigsTech34. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "WGAL Mike Hostetler".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one 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}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

There is already a page for WGAL Mike Hostetler created so you can go ahead and delete the draft. R2025kt (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)