User talk:Kwright61

Welcome!
Hello, Kwright61, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Colin Savage, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Colin Savage


The article Colin Savage has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 21:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of In Covent Garden


The article In Covent Garden has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "no indication of WP:notability. One of hundreds of local magazines that can be found all over the country."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of In Covent Garden for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article In Covent Garden 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/In Covent Garden 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. noq (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion notice -and will continue to do this while this nonsense persists. You are in a minority of one - and i will get the whole Covent Garden community to tell you are such. You alone cannot just what is history or heritage. You don't even sound like you come from London or the area. Where exactly do you come from with your views?

January 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with In Covent Garden. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. noq (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Issuing level 2 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with In Covent Garden. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 14:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Well your journalistic prowess is being exposed beautifully. I thought Wikipedia was an open source encyclopedia that covered articles of historical and important heritage to the community that runs it. If there is a definition of this it is the In And Around Covent Garden magazine which has been running for over 25 years - far longer than Wikipedia - and as a piece of journalism has outlasted ridiculous threats like those from "your community" - if you can give me ONE good reason why this article does not fulfil historical and heritage value to London, WC2 and the Covent Garden community I will bow to your superior knowledge. But these give me ONE good reason here!


 * How about you provide WP:reliable sources providing WP:significant coverage of the magazine? The onus is not on us to prove a negative but on you to show how it meets the WP:notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a place to just create any article about anything the editor thinks up but an online encyclopaedia. Sources covering the subject are required and must be more than just a listing showing it exists. Your hyperbole about a magazine of 25 years existence being of heritage importance to an area that has been signficant for centuries seems over the top. noq (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As I repeat - a lot longer than Wikipedia. Reliable sources include Camden Council and Covent Garden Area Trust. This magazine has featured Covent Gardeners for the last years - which include authors, literary agents, actors, opera singers, poets, thinkers, illlustrators, business people, etc etc... I am not going to write a long list of famous people who have been featured in the magazine! And I cannot believe that is all you care about... honestly do not have time for this ridiculous and absurd argument from ONE person - who probably has never even been to Covent Garden

age relative to Wikipedia is not relevant - there is no blanket notability granted to all things predating wikipedia. The Camden council links are not WP:significant coverage - read the linked article for what would be considered so. The Covent Garden Trust link makes no mention of the magazine at all. Just because residents of Covent Garden have featured in the magazine does not make it notable - I could write a blog about my thoughts on famous people and it would not become notable because of what I wrote about - only if WP:reliable sources wrote about the blog would that make it notable. If you still believe it meets Wikipedia guidelines, make your argument on the deletion discussion page but be prepared to be able to show why it is what wikipedia considers to be notable. The links I have provided will show you what these are. BTW, the image you have uploaded appears to be a copuright violation as you claim the image to be by Kim Church on your edit adding it to the article and also claim it to be your own work when you uploaded the image. noq (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kim Church


The article Kim Church has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

He's dead - if you read it

Speedy deletion nomination of Kim Church


A tag has been placed on Kim Church, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I will ask my friends from ITN and the BBC to write to your head office about the way this issue has been treated by you both. Only interested in saying NO to everything - with not a journalistic bone in your bodies... I frankly give up - what use is Wikipedia to anyone with you two around. I have never - in all the thirty years of using the internet - been met with such nasty petty minded ness. These two articles were to celebrate the life of Kim Church and of a magazine which has been going for 25 years. Shame on you you cynics. Well done - free speech wins again
 * We don't have a head office, and we're not a newspaper, so the threat to talk to our head office is a bit silly. I would advise you read a bit about what Wikipedia is, the Five Pillars, and our other policies and guidelines to give you a better sense of our project. You also might want to check out Free speech—we're not a government entity. We're not bound to respect anyone's right to free speech, since it doesn't really apply here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

the main office address in San Francisco advertised on your websites and contacts. I'm sorry i've wasted too much of my time trying to write interesting, information and historical pieces for this website. I'm not wasting any more time with anymore of you. Please leave small town america and visit Europe at some point to widen your horizons.

Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix (February 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy 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:Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * 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:Shuttleworth%27s_at_The_Phoenix Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shuttleworth%27s_at_The_Phoenix reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix concern
Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 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. MDanielsBot (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix


Hello, Kwright61. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shuttleworth's at The Phoenix".

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! UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)