User talk:Dan arndt

It is approximately 8:04 AM where this user lives (Perth, Western Australia). []

↓ Go to the end of this page ↓

Welcome!

Hello, Dan arndt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your unnecessary contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay till I get angry and chase you away. Here are some pages that you might find NOT helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RichMac 07:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Created Pages Moved To Edit

I recently created 3 new pages (2019-20 FA Cup Qualifying Round, 2019-20 FA Trophy and 2019-20 FA Vase) these were then moved to Draft as they lacked and do "not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published." I then added a source (the only one available at the moment for each page and yet again they were moved to Draft.

If that's the case can you then please tell me why the pages for 2018-19 FA Trophy and 2018-19 FA Vase remain available to be published as Trophy page has no linked references and the Vase page only has one linked reference?

Last seasons pages were created around the same time last year and without references with one of those pages (2018-19 FA Trophy) still having no references, so why where they allowed to be displayed but not now?

Reject vs. decline

Articles for creation submitters have been asking a lot of questions at the AfC Help Desk about drafts you've rejected. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, it shows you're reviewing many drafts, which is much appreciated.

But on some, such as User:Mikedc73/Mornington Cinema, you are sending mixed messages. The reject option (as opposed to merely decline) should be reserved for "topics entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia" – subjects that will never, ever, under any circumstances, be accepted, no matter how much the author edits them. If there's anything they can do to "fix" the draft, as you tell them in your comment on this example, then the draft should not be rejected, but should be declined, so they can resubmit it after correcting the problem. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I have re-submitted an article that was declined with some edits, could you please have a look and let me know if thats suitable and give me some directions about it. Thanks--Elifnurk (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan, I just re-submitted and article that was previously declined with multiple edits, and you rejected it within 2 minutes with zero feedback. Direction would be helpful please? Thank you kindly. (Atidwell0372 (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC))

@Dan arndt:, I'd like to echo the concerns above regarding your use of 'reject' instead of 'decline'. The idea behind introducing the 'reject' option was so that if the author repeatedly re-submits a draft without addressing the issues raised in the decline messages then we can send a clear message of 'STOP' to the author. It can also be used when a draft has zero hope of ever becoming an article. It wasn't intended to be used where the author could improve the draft such as by adding references that show that the subject is notable. Can you engage with us here in response to these concerns? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Dan arndt: - I just wanted to drop my own concerns on this - I handle a lot of queries on AFC/HD where this shows up. You're always right that they shouldn't be accepted, but a significant number of those tagged reject could probably be articles if sourced properly. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• There are now four comments from four different editors (five if you include me) spanning two weeks regarding this issue, and yet I do not see any reply or attempts to curb the number of rejections. As you may have seen I reverted one of your reviews yesterday as it was not appropriate to reject out-of-hand. I would really like to see a response with your thoughts and comments here before I kick it up the chain and go to WP:AFC for a larger group discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Make that six. I've helped several people on IRC who have had trouble understanding your reviews with extremely short comments and selected reasons often entirely omitted. The goal isn't to make the backlog number lower at all costs; it's to help new editors. KSFT ^(t|c) 03:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dereck Stewart =

Hello Dan, I just wrote my first Wikipedia entry about the first African American heading the THP. Unfortunately it was rejected. But I can't understand the reasons. Could you please give me some hints? That would be fantastic! (Mauerwerk (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC))

Hello Dan, thanks for your reply! I still struggle with the concept of a "notable achievement". How is it defined by Wikipedia? Doesn't the fact the organisation exist for 89 years, yet that Dereck Stewart is its first African-American head demonstrate that he accomplished a "notable achievement"? (Mauerwerk (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC))

Hello Dan, it's me again. I still wonder about the "notable achievement" characteristic. Let's take for instance "M. H. Sims". He was head football coach for the Northwest Missouri State University Bearcats. To me this is a far smaller achievement than becoming the first African-American presiding the THP. Hence, could you please provide me with a definition of "notable achievement" or with some links etc.? That would be fantastic! Thanks & cheers! (Mauerwerk (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC))

July 2019

Teenager tee you free book loop move Guppies1234 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I just called to say hello... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guppies1234 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)