User talk:SagersPath

My first article
This is my first article and a work in progress. I request all the help I can get. I do not understand formatting my article and there are a few photographs I would like to place into the text and I don't know how to upload these. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. SagersPath (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)SagersPath (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! I gave you a link to the teahouse, which is like the new contributor's question-and-answer forum for any questions you have about starting out, and a big table with lots of links. I hope it wasn't too much. The links are mostly if you have questions and need more information, you don't have to actually read any of them.
 * I also chipped in some on your article (User:SagersPath/sandbox) by adding bullets.
 * The main problem I see with your article is a very common one--referencing style.
 * References go inside  tags in the article, where you want the footnote to go. Then you can place  at the bottom to produce the footnotes.
 * You don't need to number them, it might actually make things more confusing! I recommend abandoning numbers altogether and just citing your sources in the text. I would have done more, but I wasn't sure which footnote went to what (like with <2a>).
 * More information can be found at Help:Footnotes and (more generally) Help:Referencing for beginners. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for all the great advice! It has helped tremendously! Would you please take a look at my editing to date and advise / or help change my updates to the acceptable format for me to request acceptance of this article? Many thanks in advance! SagersPath (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, Is it the 'Read' page that takes time to update? Often, when I edit a part of my article, the 'Read' page doesn't update accordingly. How do I reset to read the entire article with my changes? Thanks SagersPath (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is coming together well, at the very least format-wise. I can't tell you if it will pass inspection or anything, but I can say it looks like a regular article already! It should be acceptable as long as it wasn't plagiarized (it looks that good; I encourage you to submit it already and worry about format later). Really, just click "submit"!
 * Looks like your web browser is saving the page history. Bypass your cache. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your kind words of encouragement! This article has been eight months in research and undergone countless rewrites and refinements to provide an article to merit the quality standards, and meet or exceed the requirements Wikipedia demands. I am grateful for your direction and assistance. I am currently proof reading this article and making subtle changes as I go. I plan to submit this article for acceptance this coming Thursday, at noon. Again, thank you for all of your help. Wishing you all the best! SagersPath (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck, Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Awaiting submission
Hi, Meteor sandwich yum... I have submitted my article as suggested. I see there is a long list awaiting review. I've waited this long, I suppose I can wait out this long line. Is there a way to see any progress with regard to the status of the article? I looked into a few pages but did not see my submission. I don't even really understand what I'm looking at anyway. But, I shall be patient with the process. BTW, how did you condense the first reference, Phil Milstein,[1], to show and launch the URL without the actual site address within the citation? Inquiring minds want to know. :) Seriously, I don't think I would have understood the citation syntax without your help! Again, thank you so very much for your assistance with my learning curve. Warmest regards, SagersPath (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bring this to the help desk, and will link your username to "ping" you. That will show up in your notifications so you can see the thread. I'm going to ask if you can skip the line. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * becomes . If you don't add a title in between  and   it just adds numbers, starting at 1 and increasing with every link.
 * If you do add a title, it looks like this: Title XYZ → Title XYZ
 * Does that make sense? WP:CHEATSHEET gives this and more (but I think I might be overloading you with links here...)
 * Do you want me to make all the references titled like that? That's usually what Wikipedia recommends. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, yes please! If Wikipedia recommends this, then surely it will make an improvement in the article. I am more concerned about the Internet references than the actual references to published (written) media, as I know Internet Websites are generally frowned upon. But, in today's day and age, sometimes those are the only places to find the information to verify the text. I am so very grateful for your help! Thank you so very much! I will study your overload links! :) SagersPath (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Please hide only the web addresses if you believe the descriptive content is relevant to the reference itself. Thanks! :) SagersPath (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've completed the References section the way you showed me, Meteor sandwich yum! Once more, thank you so much for your assistance! :) SagersPath (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

More advice

 * Hey, it took me longer than expected to get back to you.
 * Anyways, the people I asked gave some constructive criticism (permalink) and I think I have some advice to help you out:
 * I don't think formatting the links is really worth it, because only a few should be kept (maybe format those later): WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says to limit it to 1 or 2 official external links, generally. An "external link", when used here, means a non-reference link outside of Wikipedia, like FansOfGallway.com or Twitter.com/Gallway. YouTube links and links to buy CDs should be the first ones to go.
 * As the help desk pointed out, the article's discography section has no references.
 * The article is chock-full of content, but needs more referencing: A google books search, a google news search , and maybe a "Wikipedia Reference Search" with will help you out. Look for official, well-known newspapers or interviews; anything fan-made or published by him about him probably isn't reliable.
 * Internet references are fine as long as they are reliable sources.
 * Good luck! And you're very welcome! Glad to know I've been of assistance :) Meteor sandwich yum (talk &bull; contribs) 22:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this is very helpful information and I thank you so very much, Meteor sandwich yum. It's all kind of confusing in its own way. "Internet references are fine as long as they are reliable sources." Yet, "An "external link", when used here, means a non-reference link outside of Wikipedia..."! Don't get me wrong... you have have provided me with some great reference sources, which I will research and use if appropriate, and I thank you. It is a matter of distinguishing between what is acceptable and not acceptable as an "external link" that befuddles me. None of my 'external sources' are attempting to sell or advertise a product, just verify that the product exists. With regard to the 'Discography', I will go ahead and dig into the validation of each release to come up with a reference for each and every one of them. But, they will be 'external links' because they are the only 'sources of proof' that the product exists! This is a genuine article and the subject is still living. It is the 21st century and alot of data is not available in 'written' form. Most information comes from 'Internet Sources' these days. The facts are gathered (Discography) from the actual products themselves, indicated by the Record company, Catalog number, and Release date. I shall endeavor to provide verifiable links to all of the postings contained in the Discography as requested and required, but then the article will become inundated with 'external references', which is evidently, frowned upon by the review board! Trying to wrap my head around this. Don't you hate having to deal with novices? :)
 * You're really nice, and not all newbies are nice. So you're fine.
 * What I'll do is edit your draft like any other article I would edit, and you can tell me if it's okay. Meteor sandwich yum (talk &bull; contribs) 01:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft talk:Peter Gallway#Working on the draft
You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Peter Gallway. Thanks. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the complement Meteor sandwich yum! You are indeed a very nice person yourself! I can't tell you how grateful I am to have drawn you to my page. Your assistance has been invaluable! I like what you have edited on my page. You succeeded where I failed in removing '1. Peter Gallway' from the 'Contents'. I am adressing your two notations as I write this. So, I assume, (hate that word) I am to attach my 'External links' to the appropriate 'Discography' listings as 'References' (or just links?) and then delete the 'External Links' from the page? That would make sense to me, but heck, I don't know! :) They would still be 'External Links', outside of Wikipedia... just not listed as such?  Or, would you suggest I do nothing here?  All the best! SagersPath (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

WOW! You're really GOOD! Fast too! Amazing update! I like it! Thanks!SagersPath (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Is it okay if I keep working with you? I guess the article interests me after all, and don't have much to do for the next hour or so...
 * (Though you're welcome to), you don't have to thank me each time. I enjoy writing and editing articles. Meteor sandwich yum (talk &bull; contribs) 04:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... ok. :) I was astounded that I was seeing changes to my text while I was struggling to change some stuff! What are the odds that you would be on board at the same time? I'm still working on a rewrite of the sentence about 'coming of age' (Manhattan Nocturne) It's a great sentence... perhaps from an artists point of view. But you have thrown a curve which is a very valid concern... by whom? Gives me great pause to think about this. Nice check! :) You must indeed continue to work with me Meteor sandwich yum! I like what you do and, more so, appreciate the fact that you you are willing to work with me. I think you realize that this article is important to me. This guy deserves a place and time within these pages because he has contributed so much over decades to promote the arts and launch careers of so many incredible songwriters and performing artists. He has never placed himself above anyone for recognition and, as a result, remains an obscure artist of his own right. The shear body of his work alone, validates the man. I am so grateful to you, that you 'see' the work that is going on here. That is why I so much appreciate your assistance and direction in my endeavor. This is truly a 'special project'. A thankless task to be sure. But, it is necessary to acknowledge the artistry and unselfish devotion to life's work that Peter Gallway has exhibited over these many years. No one else has yet risen to the task. I'd like to really 'know' him one day. He has influenced my life since the early 70's and I can't help but provide him a permanent record in the halls of Wikipedia's pages. So, yeah, THANK YOU for directing and helping me achieve my goal! You're right there with me and I feel indeed, blessed. SagersPath (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I made this change, where I removed the quote, because it seemed out-of-place.
 * In a similar manner, I'll probably reduce the amount of discussion about his struggle with drugs as well. Note that we can't use Wikipedia to promote people and should wait until they're discovered first, so the article might need some trimming. I can help you with that.
 * His impact on bands such as The Strangers makes me think this article has some potential, and will be kept rather than deleted (it will be if the community doesn't think it's notable enough).
 * Anyway, I'll keep on editing and making changes. Don't worry about the references/external links thing, I can sort that out. Regards, Meteor sandwich yum (talk &bull; contribs) 09:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Peter Gallway (June 8)
 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 Peter&.
 * 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Onel5969 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hello, Meteor sandwich yum. Well, my initial article has been declined. So, I must find better sources and edit the storyline. I fear I may wind up with a 'Stub' page at best. Annie Gallup, has a 'Stub' page with virtually no references at all. Perhaps Peter Gallway would achieve the same rating with no references as well! There are so few "print" references for me to acquire and use after the Reprise Records releases. But, the reviewer did bring up a few specific points for me to address as you did too. This is such a grand undertaking for me as my first article. It is overwhelming. So, there is still much work to be done and I would be most appreciative of any assistance you may be willing to provide. Do you think the Production Discography should be deleted? The research took months to complete. What do you advise as my next course of action? Many thanks. SagersPath (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yay! It got reviewed. Aww, it "flopped".
 * Okay. So:
 * Although it must be frustrating to have months of research be declined, it's still there. The help article Help:Page history reminds us that everything is saved in the page history. So even if we do blank out something, it's not "lost".
 * What specific points did the reviewer make? Nevermind. Found it, right at the top.
 * Can you live with your article being a stub? Even a WP:PERMASTUB?
 * meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. So within a few edits I reformatted all the citations (I ran it through some automated programs) for the purpose of displaying what the link goes to—very helpful to get a glimpse at which citations are strong and which are weak.
 * Next I critiqued the sources. I've been here a while, and so my first impressions are probably valuable insights (or maybe they're blunt and slightly insulting, not sure). Here is a permalink to show you my thought process in detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Peter_Gallway&oldid=613415021#References I made up the system by myself, so it might or might not make sense. I used green to mean "okay", yellow to mean "maybe okay" and red/unnecessary to mean "it's a problem". I'm going to remove the marks and edit some more; I just wanted to show you why I was removing some sources. I'll do a little more editing, and then stop for the night. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you, thank you! I have been researching more and more possible References,'Print' style. Should I enter these sources where you have requested stronger sources? I think I will --- can't hurt. Removing the Discography and External Links from view has helped take away the confusion of looking at ALL that data! So, now, we're working on the bio and references. Much better focus. Thanks so much for the hints at the Ref points. I don't know what I'd do without your help. SagersPath (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Oh, and NO, I would not really be satisified with a 'Stub' page. :)SagersPath (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * YES! You can do pretty much anything. I promise you it won't hurt the article. :)
 * Basically, do whatever you think might or might not help the article--print sources or online sources are both okay. Easy to add them; easy to remove them. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a few things, Meteor sandwich yum. There are more references to come. This is so much easier to focus on the individual topics that need the citations. I'm working still. And now, I see there are edits required to make the 'read' better still. I will work on this too. Thanks so much for your help. :)

Draft:Peter Gallway concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Peter Gallway, 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) 01:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Peter Gallway


Hello, SagersPath. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Peter Gallway".

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, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)