User talk:Percurrent

 <div style="background-color: Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes (~) ; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started.  Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)   Hello, Percurrent, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Getting started
 * Introduction
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Finding your way around
 * Table of contents
 * Directories and indexes
 * Department directory
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Editing articles
 * How to develop an article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Getting help
 * Frequently asked questions
 * Cheatsheet
 * Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
 * The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
 * Help pages
 * Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * 1) 084080;font:bold 120%/1.6 sans-serif;border:1px solid
 * 2) CEF2E0;color:
 * 3) FFC000;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">How you can help
 * Community Portal
 * Join a WikiProject
 * Follow Wikipedia etiquette
 * Practice civility
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your submission at Articles for creation: Acts 2 Network (December 18)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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:Acts 2 Network 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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Acts_2_Network 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:Acts_2_Network reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear KylieTastic, Thank you for your review of my draft page for creation. We seem to disagree about the quality of the references. Just to let you know my intention, I do plan to appeal this decision and see where it goes. And let me write out my point of view, here, for clarity's sake. I used three references in the draft article. The source names are California, Christianity Today, and WIRED. To make it easy for us, WIRED is a passing mention, so we don't need to discuss it further. But that leaves two. As I understand, two is enough. So let me discuss California and Christianity Today. Percurrent (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * California
 * Is an in-depth profile of the subject. The type of article it is, is a long-form profile. The journalist, Don Lattin, had a sit-down interview with the organization's head pastor, collected other member quotes, &c. He wrote in depth about the history and mission of the subject. His article mentions at least one other organizations, but only in passing. The subject is the article's single subject.
 * Is a reliable source. California magazine is published by the UC Berkeley alumni association, and abides by journalistic standards. It is not a tabloid or a blog.
 * Is secondary. Don Lattin did not parrot the subject's message, he examined it critically.
 * Is independent. The UC Berkeley Alumni Organization, publisher of California, is an independent organization from both the Acts 2 Network, the subject, and Christianity Today, the other source.
 * Christianity Today
 * Is an in-depth investigation of a single subject.
 * Is a reliable source. Christianity Today, per Wikipedia, is an evangelical Christian magazine founded in 1956 by Billy Graham, and has been called "evangelicalism's flagship magazine" with current readership of 260,000. As far as I can tell, this is the best evangelical Christian source in publishing. It abides by journalistic standards. It is not a tabloid or blog.
 * Is secondary. As an investigation, its job is to look at the source critically.
 * Is independent of both Acts 2 Network, the subject, and the California Alumni Association, the other source.
 * You don't say what kind of help you want, but, in any event, you should be using the interactive WP:AFC process, not the Help me template.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bbb23 for your attention. The help I was looking for was what's the proper process after the initial review of my submission, apologies if that wasn't clear in my discussion below the help-tag, but that's what it was supposed to be. In any case it looks like I don't need help anymore! Thank you. Percurrent (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Percurrent, I feel it is close to showing notability but not quiet there. The generally accepted not-rule is 3+ good sources (see essay WP:THREE). I suggest if you can find one more good source (or a couple less good sources) and resubmit that would be best or you are welcome to resubmit for a second opinion. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, looks like I hadn't learned about the 3+ not-rule! I think a third source is out there, and I'm going to consider if I want to use it. We'll see what happens. Thank you for the reply. Percurrent (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the status now. A second independent, long-form investigation existed. It was rather similar to the "Christianty Today" one, but it's fine to work it in for notability. Thus, from the point of view of WP:THREE, the three best sources are Don Lattin, Christianity Today, and the other investigation in The Triton. This overcomes the notability issue as suggested, and I feel like I am ready to resubmit this entry now, so here goes... Percurrent (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Acts 2 Network (December 19)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba 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:Acts 2 Network 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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Acts_2_Network Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamiebuba&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Acts_2_Network reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamiebuba (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Jamiebuba, I appreciate your attention. Which source(s) is(are) not up to criteria, in your view? My point of view about the sources is spelled out on this talk page, and it hasn't been specifically disagreed with by any other Wikipedian yet. That is to say, the minimum two good sources were already there on the first draft of this article, to which KylieTastic, my first reviewer, said, "I feel it is close to showing notability but not quiet there" with no specific dispute about the sources, and she suggested in the spirit of WP:THREE to add a third quality source, which I take to mean, the two quality sources already there were acceptable. Adding a source was a good suggestion anyhow, so I rewrote a section to cite from The Triton, a source I had not used before since it covered much of the same ground as Christianity Today. The referenced article from the Triton is a long-form investigation about a single subject, is the student newspaper of UC San Diego which follows reliable journalistic practice and is not a tabloid or blog, is critical analysis because it is an investigation, and is independent of the subject and the other sources. I'm respectful of other Wikipedians' point of view about the quality of my sources, I just haven't heard any specific criticisms of them yet. Percurrent (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Acts 2 Network has been accepted
 Acts 2 Network, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Acts_2_Network help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Mach61 (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)