User talk:Ovensmugs

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Hughes (televangelist) (September 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG 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:David Hughes (televangelist) 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:David Hughes (televangelist), 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:David_Hughes_(televangelist) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:David_Hughes_(televangelist) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You asked me to indicate more specifically the promotionalism :

"The church has been extensively involved in community activity including educational classes,[14] charities, donations and volunteer work.[15][16][17] David Hughes has been a harsh critic of ongoing violence, speaking publicly against mass shootings and calling for national unity.[18][19][20][21]" -- what minister has not done this?

"Pastor David Hughes was quick to adapt church services during Covid-19 quarantine by following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines with regard to public safety and health concerns." ''this is advertising, of no concern. except to your own parishioners"

The only thing  that is of possible general interest is the visit from Pence (ref 6), and that might fall under NOT NEWS, but it does provide some possibilities The public might possibly come across the church because of Pence's speech there, and want to know what sort of a church it is. But there already is an article on Church by the Glades, which is clearly a notable church. The best course might be to merge a sentence or two about the pastor into that article,  DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You also asked me more generally what you might do to improve as an editor.. If you're going to do paid editing, the most important thing is to choose to work on only subjects of unquestionable notability. Then, use references from only nationally known published sources, preferably accessible on line , use as few references from the subjects own site as possible, avoid using promotional interviews where the subject can say whatever they please. (note that not all of this is a problem for this article--I'm giving general advice). Then avoid promotional content and orientation. One rough guideline is that promotional articles (and web sites) tell the reader what the subject would like them to know; in contrast, encyclopedia articles say what the general public might reasonable want to know, having heard of the subject. Another complementary explanation is that promotional  writing is directed towards the subject's current or prospective colleagues or students or sponsors or supporters or audience. Encyclopedic writing is directed to the general public who might come across the subject's name and want to find some objective information.

As you will have found, paid writing is looked upon here rather skeptically based on our experience; I have worked with a dozen or so paid editors, and 3 or 4 have learned to write satisfactory articles. (Many WP admins won't work with paid editors at all; I will work with anyone if here are signs of good faith, and if there's indications of progress and cooperation). Of these 4, 1 has left the field because they have found insufficient clients willing to pay the fees necessary for first-rate article work unless it says what the client wants, another runs it as a minor subsidiary of their general PR business to accommodate the clients, and the other two work in very specialized fields where acceptable paid articles are in fact possible, because the article construction is quite routine. But for all of these, the articles they write for their own personal interest are better. There are also quite decent & sometimes excellent paid articles imported from the German WP, which has a different approach, and where major firms are willing to pay experienced writers the necessary amounts to get good work, and where paid editing does not have quite the opprobrium that it does here. So the current feeling at enWP is that paid writing has to be near perfection, because it's unfair to ask volunteers to fix it, when someone else is getting the money.

(I've written a little more than I planned to, and I may use some of this elsewhere. I appreciate the opportunity.)  DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Caper AI for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caper AI 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/Caper AI 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. Celestina007 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:David Hughes (televangelist)
Hello, Ovensmugs. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:David Hughes (televangelist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:David Hughes (televangelist)


Hello, Ovensmugs. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "David Hughes".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)