User talk:TheSandDoctor/Archive 2

Your submission at Articles for creation: Video game walkthrough (February 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas 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:Video game walkthrough and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

CSD:G13
Hi there; could I please point out that you are failing correctly to nominate articles under the CSD:G13 criterion, in that you are not inserting the date of last edit of the article. For the correct method please see Template db-g13. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry about that, didn't realize I was using it incorrectly.

Welcome!
Hello, TheSandDoctor, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as TheSandDoctor/Peter Bell (Reichstag), 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! TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Categorisation
Hello. Please can you be a lot more careful with categorisation, please have a look around the categories that already exist before assigning articles like Peter Bell (Reichstag) to new categories. Some of it is really basic, like every other biography being categorised as nnnn births and nnnn deaths, rather than Born in nnnn and Died in nnnn. You may find it helpful to go to your Preference tab and then Gadgets, to enable HotCat, because really you should never add a non-existent category to an article per WP:NOTRED. Le Deluge (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * will do. Thanks for the heads up.

Welcome to Milhist!
 Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion nomination of Draft: Judy O'Bannon
TheSandDoctor - Can you help me out with what exactly the issue is with the page? Is it the citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsqp (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is deleted so I cannot see it and it was a few days since I nominated it and sadly do not remember off hand. However, according to the deletion notice the issue was that the article had no "no meaningful, substantive content". was the user who actually deleted it, maybe they could assist in helping to answer this? (Tagged them so they will hopefully see this and hop in)

I take it you were the user who created that draft or? If so, (and as cliche as the line may be) I assure you that nominating it was truly nothing personal. P.S.

--TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As for your question regarding the citations, having multiple quality citations/references is always helpful and I am more than happy to assist you with any questions/articles.
 * The only content was commented out, so the page appeared to be nothing but citations. I assume you want to work on it further, so I've restored it, but I'd suggest getting some visible content into it quickly. Perhaps you just need to uncomment what's there?-- Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What's your game?
At 2017-03-04 09:25:33 you created user:Karl Brückner, admittedly not using much of Draft:Karl Brückner created by Mad744. Then 14 minutes later you applied a speedy tag to the draft article thereby hiding the (not very important) fact that Mad7744 had thought of it first. Would it not have been simpler and more honest to just edit the draft article? Please reply. There are about a dozen other Mad7744 sub-stubs that you have treated in this fashion.

When I first deleted one of those sub-stubs I thought "good - they are starting to get rid of Mad7744's collection of dead drafts of non-notable Nazis". I had no idea that you were actually going to replace it with an only slight less stubby article. I suggest you abandon the exercise or, at least, submit your stubs via the AfC process so that someone else can judge on notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had put more work into or rewritten it. I intended to be fair and split it roughly 50/50 (move half, create half). After reading what you wrote and viewing your actions (merging them), I realize the error in that thinking and will cease & assist. My apologies. From what I recall, after you merged a couple and I saw I did stop and that made me realize it. Will edit their's strictly and speedy deletede tag if I couldn't find any info to improve the draft they created (as I have also been doing). Please feel free to merge or delete the others that apply (a full list of all history related articles I have moved can be found here: User:TheSandDoctor/Published_Articles--TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Drafts
I have contested the speedy deletion of two drafts that I had declined, where you nominated them for speedy deletion with a custom rationale. One should have been added to Venus. In article space, that would be A10, but A10 only applies in article space. Most of the speedy deletion rationales only apply to articles. A few apply in all spaces, but that is not one of them, and most crud can be left to linger in draft space indefinitely. The other article was an incoherent list of bullet points. It would be speedied as A1 or A11 or G2 in article space, but, again, it can just linger in draft space. I will let an administrator decide. I didn't pull the speedy tags, but I disagree as to speedying them. I consider them to be crud, but most forms of crud other than spam and attack pages are allowed to linger in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Both edits were reverted by an administrator and thank you for pointing out that those reasons do not apply within the user namespace. I was going off of the reasons twinkle showed, which is somewhat context sensitive, but apparently not as much as I thought. Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)