User talk:JStanwood

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:JStanwood/Six Month Rule has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Six Month Rule, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Six Month Rule concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Six Month Rule, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Six Month Rule


Hello JStanwood. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Six Month Rule.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 23:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Six Month Rule for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Six Month Rule 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/The Six Month Rule until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 23:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Six Month Rule


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as The Six Month Rule, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Six Month Rule


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Six Month Rule requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JStanwood: I have deleted your recreation of the page as a plea for it to be kept. The process for appeal of the deletion decision is WP:Deletion review. However, you would have done better to further work on your Articles for Creation submission, which was deleted because nothing had been done to it in 6 months, rather than making a Main Space page. You also need to look at our notability requirements and at WP:NOT; your article had no references to demonstrate notability, and at the AfD discussion, there was general agreement that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day applied; one editor mentioned the film, but it is for you to make the case (with references) that the film defines it the same way you do in the article. If you want to petition at Deletion review, you will need to make a case against what was said at the AfD discussion, and you should also explain why you didn't just participate there. It was speedy closed, so it is possible you weren't online and didn't have time to react; but if so, you should say so. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A belated welcome and info
I don't see anyone having welcomed you, so here's a very belated welcome, with links you can explore to learn more about our rules and guidelines, as well as help pages. I'm sorry you didn't get this before. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.
Just to respond: I did work on the article for submission - I did that yesterday and submitted it. As of today those changes were deleted by someone here and that content now appears to be lost. These changes were both nominated for speedy deletion and deleted in about a 13 hour period when most of it occurred while I was sleeping. And I was the one who made the point about it being mentioned in the film - demonstrating that it was not something I myself or with a friend made up in one day (I am not even sure where you got that idea). The concept is much more widely recognized than that. And there was no link to participate in the discussion page - I tried several times to figure that out. There was one e-mail from QVVERTYVS last night and the page was deleted by the time I could do anything. Again, not a very fair process in my opinion. This will make me think twice at donation time (which I have supported 2 years in a row). I realize and have no expectation that my support should affect any editorial content, but I think the process (and lack of process) was unfair. And frankly it doesn't mean that much to me. I think it's Wikipedia's and the viewing public's loss that the idea was deleted. JStanwood (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a little puzzled - perhaps you missed it when you were reading this page after you woke up, but in QYVERTYVS' post at 23:18 yesterday, there's this: "The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Six Month Rule until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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." (I wonder whether you're connecting via a smartphone and that's making it hard for you to see the links.) Yes, it was speedy closed, which doesn't often happen - usually there's a week or more for people who want to save an article to do so; you might also want to speak with the closer on their talk page if you haven't already done so. But an article that was turned down at AfC as not having sufficient evidence of notability and then created in Main Space without a single footnote is at a disadvantage. Also, I see two contributors there raising the "just made up" argument, one of whom is also mentioning the film but doubts it's connected.


 * In any event, now that you've had our notability requirements brought to your attention, if you believe you can document its notability, please do so at deletion review. That might include demonstrating that the film is related. Otherwise, if you just misunderstood the notability requirement or were not aware of it, I am really very sorry no one gave you the necessary links earlier. This place can require some studying of the rules and guidelines, and we do appreciate people submitting new articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Midtown Village (January 21)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit when you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jarkeld (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Midtown Village (February 18)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [.
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Libby norman (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.


 * Every time I see a Wikipedia page with only one citation - such as this one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejectment - I think of the ridiculous basis you offered for rejecting my article. Just thought I'd let you know you're in my thoughts.  And did you mention to whomever you report to that I will never donate again to Wikipedia?

Rejected Article for submission
I see that you rejected an article I submitted to Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Midtown_Village - stating that "Solid references are essential – currently they don't support the statements in the article." Yet this is simply not accurate. While the topic is not widely recognized (which is part of the article itself) and there are limited references available, these should not be held against the article itself. The concept embodied in the article is unique and novel as well as relatively new (resulting in limited source material). Nonetheless, it (the subject of the article) exists. The article consists of 6 statements, 4 of them are in fact supported - some by a page in Wikipedia itself, which implies that you don't think Wikipedia is "solid." It is this somewhat irrational policing of Wikipedia which caused me to not donate last year and will probably continue. I realize that my donation should in no way influence the editorial content of Wikipedia and I wouldn't respect Wikipedia if it did, but at the same time, the management and control of the site becomes an effective repellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JStanwood (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ==Your concerns about article rejection==

Hi JStanwood, thanks for your note on my talk page and I'm sorry you are disappointed with the rejection. I'm a volunteer reviewer – like all Wiki reviewers – so this is a conclusion I reached based on my opinion of what was on the page and the references I read. One of the cornerstones of Wiki is that we don't publish material if there aren't extensive supporting references – ie, published material in reliable secondary sources. While this can seem harsh, it is also quite a logical rule – I've had very plausible articles in front of me (one that comes to mind is about a lesser known saint) that turn out to be completely made up. Wikipedia stands or falls by its reputation for accuracy. This neighbourhood exists, no doubt about that, but two of your four refs appear to me to be primary sources (ie, linked to Midtown), which I understand is a marketing group for the area? The third appears to be a map that doesn't mention Midtown Village, unless I'm missing something. As the topic is already mentioned on mainspace as a subsection within Washington Square West, Philadelphia, you could improve the existing article subsection. Alternatively, add more beef to the article by looking for more references that mention Midtown Village as a defined area – for instance and  and  and. Hope that helps. Libby norman (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your response to this seems similarly illogical to the original rejection. The idea of Midtown Village is relatively new so indeed there is little information to cite as authority (or "beef") and I am sure the many people who live, work and shop there will agree. But now, due to your fiat, it suffers even less recognition. Midtown Village, like, e.g., Tribeca, is a neighborhood that started kind of as a grass-roots thing. What I offered for citation was legitimate and I get that you won't say, "Maybe I was wrong" (you are). So many times I see unsupported pages on Wikipedia which don't suffer such scrutiny (for example, the first "random article" that wikipedia sent me to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandinam_a_Coed_Deri - a "site of special scientific interest" with no references at all other than the referring page). Rather than simply approve the page and improve it with the citations you actually found on your own, you deem it better to just reject it. Which to me makes no sense at all. Part of the reason the article was sparse was because I wanted it to be approved first (knowing that the risk for rejection is high) and then I and others would have added to it (as is my understanding of Wikipedia). Whatever, Wikipedia works despite people such as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JStanwood (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. As you'll see from the above, I've now moved this whole discussion onto your Talk page as I think it might be better in one place – also providing a useful resource for me to respond and for others to see the debate. I'm sure you don't mind since you placed these comments on my Talk page. My rejection wasn't illogical, but based on Wikipedia guidelines and I do think you would benefit from reading a few of these before you launch into what is sounding rather akin to a personal attack on me. First up, perhaps you might want to read WP:CIVIL, which explains the concept of disagreeing without being disagreable. To return to your article, you say the concept of Midtown Village is relatively new, with relatively little information. If so, Wikipedia is not the place to establish its identity because, as I explained in my initial response, all articles have to be verified through reliable external sources. If you look at the guidelines on notability at WP:N it says close to the top: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." As to your comment that often you see other pages that aren't properly supported – I completely agree. Wikipedia is always evolving and some pages have got/do get through, but that doesn't mean reducing standards of everything else to uphold some principle of mediocrity – when pages are looking poor or undersourced the best thing to do is improve them or flag them, which you are welcome to do. When I supplied further references it was a genuine attempt to assist you as it's your article and therefore up to you to decide whether you want to do a bit more work on it or just improve the existing section in Washington Square West, Philadelphia. If you did actually want my help, you didn't really go the right way about it – as it happens, I would be happy to help, but only if you are prepared to move this debate onto civil ground and accept good faith advice in good faith. I am, of course, not the only editor in the sea so you may prefer resubmitting the article for the third time or getting some assistance from the Teahouse – the editors there are extremely helpful. Libby norman (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Midtown Village concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Midtown Village, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Midtown Village


Hello JStanwood. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Midtown Village".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)