User talk:Charitygaff

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: C. Gaff (October 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:C. Gaff 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 [//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:C._Gaff Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pythoncoder&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:C._Gaff reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 03:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Reference added. Local (area wide/Southeast Iowa) newspaper article where the subject was featured online and was on the front page of the physical copy of the newspaper. Charitygaff (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: C. Gaff (October 2)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

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:C. Gaff 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 [//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:C._Gaff Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:C._Gaff reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Our local newspaper is as much a reliable secondary source as the New York Times, which is also a local newspaper (yes it has nationwide distribution, but if someone in California subscribed to the Daily Gate City, they could get a copy. It is a physical and online news source for all of Southeast Iowa, Northeast Missouri, and Western Illinois. Secondly, the article is not just a mention, I am the entire topic and my name is in the title of the article. I'm not sure the article could be any more focused on me and my books. I would like to take this matter to a supervisor, because I don't even believe you actually even glanced at the newspaper article and I know for a fact that no one in your organization went to the official website, there was no web traffic this past weekend. Charitygaff (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no "supervisors" on Wikipedia, you can get more help here WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Theroadislong (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: C. Gaff (October 8)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:C. Gaff 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 [//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:C._Gaff Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:C._Gaff reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself, at Draft:C. Gaff. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Charitygaff. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not attack anyone. I gave my opinion about the reviewer not providing anything constructive. Why would someone even review a draft if they did not have anything to say and (very likely) did not even glance at the page itself? The review was done not minutes after being submitted for approval. It does not do anyone any good to simply decline without any reasonings or actual reviewing. Thus, the reason why I told the individual they were a terrible reviewer. This is my opinion, based on factual data and personal experience. Charitygaff (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:C. Gaff has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:C. Gaff. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused, I provided the source of a newspaper article written specifically about the topic of concern. Is it just that the there isn't a source to verify some of the details that I have included? Do I need to write a physical book about my life so that you can verify those details or do I need to have more specific questions asked in my next interview? I'm just not really sure what you're wanting here? What better person to write about an individual's life than that individual themselves really? I tried not to include biased information, as the rules stated...but beyond including a source to where the 'individual' is more than a mere mention and is independant of the subject (of which both are accurate of the article that I included) no one has really told me what the actual problem with the submission is. If I need to edit it to not include as many personal detail then just say that, don't say that the news source is not not good enough, because it certainly checks both boxes. I'm fairly sure that the Daily Gate City, the most widely read and subscribed to newspaper in Northeastern Missouri, Southeast Iowa, and Western Illinois would like being told they're not good enough. I'm getting a bit frustrated with the same response, that response has been addressed and nothing beyond it is being said. Charitygaff (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw the comment about it not reading like an encyclopedia article, which is not my forte, to be honest. However, if that's what the problem was, why wasn't that just mentioned instead of the source topic being the only comment given to me up until this point? I can fix that and only put what was mentioned in the article, if that is what is necessary. I just figured that, considering I am a primary source, including details that are not already out there would be helpful to an autobiography. I didn't tag it as an autobiography originally, because that was not an option. I realize that eventually someone else may write a biography of me, but publishing in such a rural area it is difficult to get press beyond the local, of which I am fairly well known. The article I provided was on the front page of the newspaper, if you'll notice it does say 'featured' on the article. In any case, if I need to revise it to include only what is in the article itself, that is fine. I just need to know exactly what you want, otherwise I can not fix the problem. Charitygaff (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable topic, we have no interest in what you want to say about yourself and interviews are NOT acceptable independent sources. The drat would need a complete re-write in neutral tone too, supposing you found the sources to support the content. Theroadislong (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

How is an interview by a newspaper not an acceptable source? If it is not, then what is an acceptable source? I guess I just don't understand what you're saying is acceptable, when it comes to being about a person. The article was written about the publishing of my book and the signing that I did. In it, I was asked questions and quoted. Isn't that what generally is used as a secondary source for most individual creators? I can rewrite with more neutrality. However, at this point, it just feels like it is being denied based on the fact that I am not famous quite yet (which is something that even the basic information says is not something that wikipedia does). So, if a periodical reference source about an author, book, and book signing is not a good enough source to reference, an author and a book/book series, please tell me exactly what is...? Charitygaff (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can read up on reliable sources here Reliable sources and here Reliable sources/Perennial sources interviews are not considered to be reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the source that I used is not on that list, which in and of itself even that article says that it doesn't necessarily mean that it is unreliable, simply that it is not a topic of discussion. The Daily Gate City is an accredited news source from Mississippi Valley Publishing with the Community Media Group (https://www.mississippivalleypublishing.com/daily_gate/ ). It is a local newspaper, but that does not make it unreliable, in fact, it probably makes it more reliable, considering they have first hand knowledge of the topics they report on. This piece is not an opinion piece, it is a piece announcing the factual release of my book April of 2021 and the signing of that book for the public. Yes, an interview was included in it, but the article is not only an interview. In the Wikipedia article you sent me to, it does not say that -only- those sources listed can be used, it merely states what Wikipedia considers reliable and unreliable. It says, "If your source isn't listed here, the only thing it really means is that it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion."
 * If you are denying the article based on principle, just say that, don't send me links that do not give me any information on how to fix what you say is wrong with it and do not have me remove all the details that can not be proven based on public record and the news article provide. Just say, "You're not famous, we don't want your article." Even though, Wikipedia itself claims it doesn't base articles on fame or popularity. Seems a bit inaccurate to me, at this point. At this point, I'm about to be finished trying, because being on Wikipedia does not make or break my book series and it certainly does not hurt my feelings. In the college I went to, Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source and one can not use it on research papers, however I -can- use the Daily Gate City. Seems odd to me, but I suppose you have your rules and accredited colleges have theirs, right?
 * In any case, I made the edits you suggested, that's all I can really do at this point. Those were my last edits though, because it seems there is no pleasing you people and if major local news source isn't good enough for you, I'm not sure what is...beyond CNN, I guess, but then...Wikipedia doesn't require anyone to be famound, right? Charitygaff (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and your local newspaper IS a reliable source, but reviewers are looking for at least three independent reliable sources that cover the topic in depth. your draft doesn't have this. Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does it not say upon submission that it needs at least three independent resources, if that is what is needed? It simply says that the information needs independent reliable sources, which I gave. Even you admit that it is a reliable resource, so technically the requirements that were asked for were given. The edits you suggested were made. If Wikipedia proper wants at least three sources, shouldn't it say that to avoid legal issues concerning rule and policy clarification? Charitygaff (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: C. Gaff (October 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Numberguy6 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:C. Gaff 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 [//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:C._Gaff Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Numberguy6&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:C._Gaff reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Numberguy6 (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * -You- did not give me any reasons and the article was -largely- edited since the last individual that I spoke with. There is nothing with in this that is biased or does not read like an encyclopedia article. Saying 'Same reasons as before' is junk and not constructive at all, especially considering I have been working with the previous reviewers to try to make this article acceptable. You are a terrible reviewer. Charitygaff (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason is the same, namely a complete lack of references apart from one local newspaper which is NOt sufficient and please don't attack other users. Theroadislong (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You still have not said why it is not sufficient and I didn't attack anyone, I gave my opinion. Why even do anything with it, if it is simply 'the same reasons as before'? That does not tell me anything, it is not constructive. I am entitled to my opinion. Charitygaff (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, know that this conversation is being recorded and filed, so your answers will be on record. Charitygaff (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for self-promotion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ponyo bons mots 19:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This article is not intended to be self-promotion, it is intended to be autobiographical. If a page is put up on Wikipedia concerning me, I would like to have the original information reflect what is accurate and be able to follow the page, in the case that something inaccurate is portrayed. If the link to Barnes & Noble is not allowed, it can be deleted, because it was not my intention to self-promote, at least, it is not the intentional reasoning. I'm not sure what one would do an autobiography for, if part of their intention was not allow others more information about themselves than they originally had. Which, a consequence of which could be self-promotion, I suppose. However, in essence autobiographies, from what I understand are more about giving others more information about the individual that they are based upon.
 * (Reference on autobiographies: https://writingcommons.org/section/genre/autobiography/#:~:text=Writers%20of%20autobiographies%20may%20hope,important%20moments%20in%20their%20lives.) Charitygaff (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Autobiographies are strongly discouraged, for the reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is the article not neutral? The only information that I put in are either in the newspaper article or public record. The summaries are the summary on the back of the book and the series summary that is included when you go online to purchase the book. I understand now that I should have had two more sources, which I do not, so it doesn't really matter now anyway. However, being indefinitely blocked there is no way for me to go back in and add them once my second book comes out in a couple of months either. I was not aware that I needed multiple sources and it wasn't until yesterday that I was even told that I needed three or more, all I was told was that my source was not sufficient...which come to find out it was, I just needed more than one. Strongly discouraged does not mean not allowed and being completely blocked indefinitely for doing so does not feel like it is within the parameters of the Wikipedia policy. After I was told -yesterday- that I needed more than three sources, I hadn't intended on submitting it again anyway (but before then, it was not once mentioned to me, thus I am not sure how you could expect me to know information that I am not given). Then right after I was told, you blocked me. I don't really feel like that is the standards that Wikipedia is about either. Is it? If so, I'm not really sure that I want anything to do with that kind of organization anyway. = / Charitygaff (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:C. Gaff
Hello, Charitygaff. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:C. Gaff, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;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) 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:C. Gaff


Hello, Charitygaff. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "C. Gaff".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)