User talk:ARAMAEAN

Your submission at Articles for creation: S.J. Goldsmith (August 26)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Abdullah Alam was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:S.J. Goldsmith and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:S.J._Goldsmith Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abdullah_Alam&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:S.J._Goldsmith reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Abdullah Alam (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

S.J. Goldsmith
Hi there, I seen the new article you created, S.J. Goldsmith and formatted the article to follow Wikipedia's manual of style. I have run into a problem, and need you to check the article to make sure it's not incorrect now. You had a list of external links that were not really external links, meaning they contained no link in them. Were these meant to be the references since they can't be used as external links? You also had a list of books written by subject but placed them in the "References" section. Is this what you meant to do or were they supposed to go in the previous section "Books"? To me, the layout looks like it makes sense now, but if you don't want me editing the article, just revert my edits. Cmr08 (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I'm a little confused about the questions for me on your talk page. Basically, there not here, not on the articles talk page either. When I looked at your contributions, it looks like the only edit you made in the last few days was on my talk page, where you asked me to check the questions you left me on your talk page, so obviously you didn't leave questions for me, is that what you meant when you said on my talk page, "I hope you find them"? Cmr08 (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ettessa, on my talk page, you asked if the article was ready to go on Wikipedia, and if I will do what's necessary. I'm a little confused about the questions you asked because you have already added the draft article into the main space, so it's already on Wikipedia, and I don't know what you mean about me doing what's necessary, because like I said, the article is already there. I'm really sorry I can't be of much help, unless you can tell me exactly what you want me to do. I have already cleaned up the formatting issues and added categories, other than that I don't know. Cmr08 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

your last message
Well, it comes up saying it's a new unreviewed article. It can't be googled so hardly anyone will be using it and no one out there can add to it or improve it. So it's not really there yet. I hoped you might help me with advice on what this means - and what next?! Are you a Reviewer. Can you get that tag removed so it can be made public without qualification? That would be brilliant. Thank you again.


 * C. Fred who is a really good admin has taken care of the unreviewed template. I'm not a reviewer, so when I cleanup an article, I never touch the template. As far as your comment about google, Wikipedia has nothing to do with google and has no control over what google links or doesn't link, and not coming up on google doesn't mean the article doesn't exist on Wikipedia. The article was in main space and available to edit by anyone as soon as you created the article, regardless of the fact that you searched google and it wasn't there. The fact that I edited the article should be proof enough that it existed in main space. I can also note that when I searched google to find the IBSN numbers for his books, the article was listed there as the second hit, so google is now linking to the article. Also, it doesn't matter if maintenance templates are placed on articles, anyone can still find the article, it just means there are issues that need to be addressed, they have nothing to do with qualification as an article. If you look now, the editor who removed the unreviewed notice did add another template for an issue, but the article can still be found. I doubt my answer has really helped any this time, but feel free to post on my talk page if you have any questions in the future, and I will do my best to see if I can help. Cmr08 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this has helped a lo! As you say Google now links to the article, presumably because the un-reviewed notice has gone. It looks good and I'm grateful also to the reviewer. Thanks for adding the ISBN nos. And for explaining the maintenance template. Just one more question, if I may. How do I add further links to other Wikipedia articles? I take it they don't happen automatically.


 * Adding links to other Wikipedia articles is pretty easy, you just put two brackets before and after the article you want to link, like . I just went and added two links, so if you check the edit you will see what I did. If you're adding links, an article only needs to be linked once, and common everyday words don't have to be linked. Also, like I said earlier Wikipedia and Google have nothing to do with each other, thus we have no say over how, when, why google indexes search links the way they do. Aslother editors, they will tell you the same thing. Cmr08 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Get it re Google. Presumably something in Google excludes Wikipedia articles under review, while prioritising Wikipedia otherwise. Important for this to work, as of course Google is researchers' first port of call at all levels. Thanks again for guidance and edit. Now to a new article!

Speedy deletion nomination of S.J. Goldsmith


A tag has been placed on S.J. Goldsmith requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. RolandR (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:S.J. Goldsmith that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''You've made some serious accusations against. You should really focus the discussion at the article talk page on the merits of the article. If you think there's a long-term pattern of behaviour engaged in by RolandR, you can bring that to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents—but you need to have solid proof and be prepared to have your own actions scrutinized.'' —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you C Fred, but all I said about the concerns I ascribed to the editor in question were such as he himself claimed of himself, so I do not think this was either uncivil or lacking respect. The accusation you describe as serious was based on the timing of the critique of the entry on S.J. Goldsmith. It had lain untouched and uncriticized for two years but a few moments after I had done some minor editing, including of possibly W, which was of politically sensitive material in the interests of accuracy, my own one and only Wikipedia creation came under attack and threat of deletion. The timing is extraordinary. The suspicion I expressed is therefore reasonable. Of course I cannot prove it.

Nomination of S.J. Goldsmith for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article S.J. Goldsmith 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 Articles for deletion/S.J. Goldsmith 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. RolandR (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)