User talk:Davidhs0

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have been making small contributions to Wikipedia articles as an anonymous user.

• https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/84.125.62.246
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.125.62.246

(I made more edits but they could be had made with another IP or language)

Now, I joined to wikipedia and I want associate these contributions to my account. Is it possible?

--Davidhs0 (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really a way to link an edit made from an IP to your account, since an IP can be anyone at all, and anyone could claim it obviously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. --Davidhs0 (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link.--Davidhs0 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you copy content from one language Wikipedia page to another, as you did with this edit, please add {{

Ok, thank you. I did not know this. Davidhs0 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Whpq:,

My article

George Wallace (author)

had

• main sections: Biography, Works, Adaptations;
• sources:
  • (W) Website of author: http://www.george-wallace.com/
  • (VC) https://veterancrowdnetwork.com/2021/08/george-wallace-retired-navy-commander-national-best-selling-author/
  • (IMDB) https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4835713/
• and external links:
  • (PRH) https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/authors/233860/
  • (FF) https://www.fantasticfiction.com/w/george-wallace/

I used these in sections:

• Biography: copied from (W) and seen in (VC), (IMDB) and (FF) (I did not copy from https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13542604 but it is a copy of W).
• Works: copied from (W), (PRH) and (FF), added ISBN codes as reference, found in other sites.
• Adaptations: found in (IMDb).

If I can not copy the biography (I have not English level for rewrite it without errors), Can I create the article as stub, only with works and adaptations? Davidhs0 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot copy or closely paraphrase aby texts even if you are doing a stub. A stub would be acceptable from a copyright perspective if you write it in your won words. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A last try... I rewrote the biography section with my words (perhaps has English typos).

I suppose the other sections are correct (they was not copy/paste).

@Whpq: Can you review the article in my User:Davidhs0/sandbox ? Thanks! Davidhs0 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems okay from a copyright standpoint. -- Whpq (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, @Whpq. I will search more references, and I add if I find, before publish it. Davidhs0 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spinster300 was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The subject is likely notable, but the context and readability is lost because the article has

too many citations to navigate through – please rework this. Please also cut down the subject's extensive bibliography to what his most significant and notable works are. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC).[reply

]

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:Don Keith
  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.

Spinster300 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidhs0! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Spinster300 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spinster300, I have question about your comments:

• This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.

  Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.
  If you mean to infobox person, this will be link to Wikidata and fill if the draft is approved.

• the context and readability is lost because the article has too many citations to navigate through – please rework this.

  I moved citations with multiple occurs from references to external links.
  It is solved?

• Please also cut down the subject's extensive bibliography to what his most significant and notable works are.

  Is it necessary? I would prefer to leave all his work in the article...

Davidhs0 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Davidhs0, thank you for getting in touch! I am very happy to answer your questions and help you improve the article.

Firstly, when I say that there is insufficient context to the reader – on Wikipedia, this is primarily about the encyclopaedic tone of the language and sentences used to construct an article. The article, as it stands, is written in a format that uses a lot of

peacock terms

to describe the subject in its lead – this is unacceptable. The reader must learn about the subject in a very non-distracting manner – the reader does not need to be impressed by the terms "award-winning" and "best-selling", but rather simply told the facts as they are. With your permission, I am happy to help you find a more encyclopaedic tone to the draft.

Secondly, kindly refrain from

WP:BLPs

, but we need to format them in a manner in which it is clear to the reader where the information is derived from and not to prove that everything can simply be proven for the sake of it. Please bring back the sources into the draft and we will work through them together.

Thirdly, this article is about the subject, and not a list of their works. At present, more than half of the article's navigation is just a list of their works – and this does not provide any context to the reader as to which books the author is best known for or has won any awards for. In this article, we need to read more about why Keith wrote what he wrote over his career. If that can be brought into context, the list of works can stay to corroborate what the main text states – until the list of works warrants a list article all on its own.

Please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any further questions. I will improve the draft where I can whenever I get time in the coming few days. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300, I reply

• Firstly...

  I tried use an encyclopaedic tone but my English is not very good, so the text can not be correct. If you want, you fell free to modify my words.
  About the awards received, I read again the article and there are some paragraphs with awards (2nd, 3th paragraphs). Perhaps can be moved to a new section "Awards"

• Secondly...

  Ok, I restored all cites. You can modify these and comment with me.

• Thirdly...

  I added paragraphs in the biography seccion with references to his works (in order to brought into context). Perhaps is it enough?

• I will improve the draft where I can whenever I get time in the coming few days.

  Yes, of course. Thanks!

Davidhs0 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Davidhs0, not to worry, I will improve the draft when I get the time. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Davidhs0, I have made my improvements to the draft, adding some reliable sources I could find. Unfortunately, the article is much shorter now because social media are not considered reliable sources, and most of the citations were to either the subject's own website, LinkedIn or Facebook, which is not accepted. Please submit the draft in its present form and I shall accept it. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Spinster300, What a pity for the biography! :( I submit now. Davidhs0 (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Keith, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spinster300 (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Draft:Consider Her Ways and Others

? I added references but I have doubts:

• References 1 to 3 are used in many positions of the article, I do not if they must be here or in "External links".
• References 5 to 10 are used to obtain summaries of the short stories. Most of them are blogs or similar, but only refer to summaries. Can I use them? (if these need to be removed, the external link to the full text of the collection can used as reference of this.)

Davidhs0 (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Take care to read

WP:RS

.

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:Consider Her Ways and Others
  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.

asilvering (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, I did not find any more sources (only bookstores, reviews on personal pages, wikis, forums or similar). Can you help me to identify any of the bad references in my article? Davidhs0 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in that case the subject is not notable and this draft will not be accepted. You need multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent, and the draft does not have any sources that fulfil this criteria. It isn't an issue of needing to remove "bad" references, but that none of the sources rise to the level of "good" references, and we need at least a couple of good ones. -- asilvering (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you @Asilvering. I will search on Google books some reference. Davidhs0 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed references to blogs and added references to books where the short story collection or its stories are mentioned.

@Asilvering, can you review again please? if there are not enough, it is not worth continuing: I did not find more references in books or news. Davidhs0 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RM process later instead, so you don't need to worry about that for now. -- asilvering (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi @Asilvering. The article Consider Her Ways is about the novella (it is associated to the https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5163185) and I think should only be related to the novella, but contains information about the collection (the image and the "Other stories in the collection" section). That is why I want to create a specific article about the collection (similar to articles from other collections by this author), and after be accepted, move all information related to the collection from Consider Her Ways to Consider Her Ways and Others. Davidhs0 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot... also my idea is associate the new article Consider Her Ways and Others to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q124388828. Davidhs0 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find enough on just the collection to convince myself it's independently notable but since we also have an article on

WP:IAR. Just be aware that having an article accepted through AfC doesn't mean there won't/can't be a future move/deletion discussion about it. If that happens, feel free to tag me in to the discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Consider Her Ways and Others, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]