User talk:LivingWellat50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, LivingWellat50, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

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 {{Help me}} 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) 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharon (March 11)[edit]

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:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, LivingWellat50! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharon (March 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Guessitsavis was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Una Nation (March 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This group seems to have mostly made news through its stunt of offering Elizabeth Warren membership. The claim of 250 million members (which has been corrected) as well as the explanations of why their leader is called "King" while other indigenous groups tend to use "Chief" are misleading and appear to be attempts to give this group more legitimacy than is due.
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.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Una Nation (March 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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.
Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joahnnes, I don't know how it can be improperly sourced. Everything abides by wikipedia LAW. And... there are literally 43 SOURCES. REPUTABLE sources. YOU may want to go over the Referencing for Beginners so that you can get refreshed on it, because this article meets all guidelines. Period. LivingWellat50 (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, maybe you could be more descriptive next time? Just denying an article and saying "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources" does not help. Especially when you do NOT say ANY of the things that are SUPPOSEDLY improperly sourced. Bless your heart, though. LivingWellat50 (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that all content and refs about Elizabeth Warren be removed. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So silence history? Okay. Sounds good. I'll be sure to remember this. Wikipedia silences it's mixed-blood voices and article. LivingWellat50 (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't already, consider asking for input on improving the draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, " However, going by the tribe's enrollment practices" is what we call original research and not allowed. So you clearly don't know that policy. Nationtalk says "powered by you". Like Wikipedia itself which anyone can edit, it's not reliably published with editorial control, so not allowed. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to understand why we don't use the Washington Free Beacon and rarely the Washington Times. You are new and still have a lot to learn about our policies and guidelines. This isn't silencing anyone, it's just part of being an actual encyclopedia and not a website where anything goes. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if you take out the Free Beacon and nationtalk, you still have 30+ references for this tribal group. LivingWellat50 (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2026 Oregon Gubernatorial Election (March 15)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Guessitsavis was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
See WP:TOOSOON.
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.
Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of City-recognized tribes in the United States for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article City-recognized tribes in the United States 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City-recognized tribes in the United States 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 until the discussion has finished.

Yuchitown (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

LivingWellat50 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) DELETE. LET'S SILENCE HISTORY LIKE WIKIPEDIA IS KNOWN FOR. I hope they don't let Yuchitown loose on the CRT page. That would be scary.[reply]

March 2024[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at User talk:LivingWellat50#Nomination of City-recognized tribes in the United States for deletion. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Doug Weller talk 16:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do assume good-faith. However, they did not. Period. You can't say otherwise. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LivingWellat50 Of course I can. What are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 08:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yuchitown went on a delete-a-thon. That is unacceptable behavior from an admin LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an Administrator, I don't know why you think Yuchitown is. And they haven't deleted the page, just started a discussion. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was AFTER Yuchitwon ASSUMED that I represent this group. THIS IS NOT MY GROUP. When I saw they were not even mentioned on ANY article on Wikipedia I knew something was up with wikipedia. Now, after my experience with admins, I can tell you that wikipedia is a dictatorship. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You only want certain information. It does not matter that a topic has 30 news articles about it. HAHA Wikipedia is a joke LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LivingWellat50 The point is it didn't. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And certainly... you can see that after this Yuchitown saw I created a page called "City-recognized tribes" they reverted ALL of my edits EVERYWHERE. THAT cannot stand. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating a single article with zero sources is not a "delete-a-thon." Please learn more about Wikipedia's core policies. Yuchitown (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
30 sources = zero sources? You're wrong. Period. LivingWellat50 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what article has that many sources and can you please link to the deletion discussion for me? Doug Weller talk 20:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article Draft: Una Nation had that many sources before its creation was DECLINED multiple times. They are the ONLY mixed-blood tribe in the USA. They are city-recognized by Springfield, Oregon(https://laserfiche.springfield-or.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1274041&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Springfield-Laserfiche&cr=1). THAT IS ON THE CITY WEBSITE. I do not understand why wiki editors have it out for the Una. I'm a concerned member of this supposed "community" of Wikipedia. It is hard to assume good faith when SOME admins and editors are not acting in good faith. The Una Nation has been covered by multiple news organizations multiple times. ALL sourced properly in the article Draft: Una Nation. It's a unique situation. The Una do not qualify for federal recognition because they are not a Native American tribe. They are a mixed-blood tribe. So... they are in a unique situation. However, they can PROVE recognition by Springfield as the ONLY city-recognized tribe in the United States (link above). I created the page City-recognized tribes of the United States, as it was not created. However, because the Una are the ONLY city-recognized tribe in the United States, they were the only one listed. Yuchitown marked the article for deletion. This is concerning. LivingWellat50 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, here is the link to the deletion discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/City-recognized_tribes_in_the_United_States LivingWellat50 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LivingWellat50 I know about that, I thought you were referring to something else. Note that you've got the wrong spelling, City-recognized tribes of the United States never existed. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you poste this TWICE... but, sorry, I was off by one word. City-recognized tribes in the United States is the correct title. LivingWellat50 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LivingWellat50 I know about that, I thought you were referring to something else. Note that you've got the wrong spelling, City-recognized tribes of the United States never existed. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how this happened. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia is not is a democracy. Editing here is a privilege. "Anyone can edit" is true to a certain extent. One must follow guidelines and policy but more importantly one must follow consensus. The dictator is the one trying to force their personal view into articles despite very knowledgeable and experienced editors saying it has no place on Wikipedia as it currently stands. There is not a concerted effort to keep this content off Wikipedia because of who, or what, the subject is. There is an ongoing effort to keep content like this off Wikipedia because it doesn't meet the criteria to be accepted on this encyclopedia. If you want to write about "city-recognized tribes" then I encourage you to do so on your own blog until reliable secondary sources give it significant coverage and then you are more than welcome to include it on Wikipedia. --ARoseWolf 11:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rose! Thanks for the talking-to! Didn't need it. As you can see on the page deletion discussion, I already agreed that this article should be deleted until other tribes are city recognized and covered by the news. I get it. Thanks, Rose. :) LivingWellat50 (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly not a new editor, what was your previous account?[edit]

Your first edit shows you know layout and how to create citations. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a previous account. I learned as I went along. It seems that's how Wikipedia works... all of the guides on how to create proper citations. I clicked on "Edit Source" on an article to learn how to create one of my own. Unless all of the guidelines and guides are simply for nothing. I am not new to tech. I may be 50 but I'm not dumb. I did not know how to do anything on here until I read about it. When I do something, I go all in. LivingWellat50 (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. 50 is young. But I don't recall ever seeing a new editor creating something with proper citations and layout with their first edit before. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. Wikipedia should have better editors who know how to look at source. lol LivingWellat50 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with ANY coding experience would know to click on "Edit Source" to learn about how to create an article. Wouldn't you? LivingWellat50 (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't get that message I obviously wouldn't. But if you say you did that and learned, well, that's interesting. But insulting people this way is not helping you. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate being insinuated that I am a liar, Doug. Isn't wikipedia's own policy to take editors and admins in good faith? Like what am I listening to? Isn't it YOU that wrote on my page: "Welcome to Wikipedia... On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors... Doug Weller talk 16:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)"??? It appears YOU in fact are breaking this rule, Doug. LivingWellat50 (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do. It all went downhill after I said I’d never seen this before in a new editor. I’m probably affected by all the new accounts I’ve seen and discovered that they were a blocked editor coming back with a new account . Your responses after that didn’t help. Doug Weller talk 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you saying that LivingWellat50 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize as well, for my part in the "downhill-ness". LivingWellat50 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Una Nation (March 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The article is now more accurate and less full of puffery, but it still offers no indications that this group has received significant, coverage in any independent media, outside of the one event of offering membership to Senator Warren. (A failed political stunt, really, since there is no indication that Warren accepted the membership or even ever acknowledged the offer.)
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.
WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiiiiight. You are unbelieveable. I fear no matter what coverage this group gets, YOU will always make sure it never gets approved. LivingWellat50 (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should start deleting article that only have one or two references. HALF A WIKIPEDIA WOULD BE GONE. LivingWellat50 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't do that obviously. I guess you could take them to WP:AfD if you checked to be sure they didn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and its associated pages. WikiDan61 has given you advice and links I see, I suggest you follow them up. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on it. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IM NOT AN ADMIN ON WIKIPEDIA. @WikiDan61 is, however. LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never occurred to me you could be. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, you are breaking the rules of good-faith. You are being rude. And as an "experienced" editor, you should know better. LivingWellat50 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what you are referring to. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller "never occured to me you could be" is rather rude. LivingWellat50 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wasn’t meant to be other than a factual statement about the obvious. I can’t understand how you thought it was rude. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I appreciate that. Let's just leave it there. That way it doesn't descend further. LivingWellat50 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice you can respond to me, but not dan. How very peculiar... LivingWellat50 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Wikipedia administrator. Just an editor with more experience and knowledge of the Wikipedia guidelines. As to your statement "I fear no matter what coverage this group gets, YOU will always make sure it never gets approved." you have not provided any more evidence of coverage since the first time the article was declined. You have not provided more sources, you've just removed material that could not be reliably sourced. As you'll note at Draft talk:Una Nation, I have reviewed each of the sources you've provided and indicated why they are not sufficient. If there are more sources available (that don't suffer the same shortcomings as the existing sources), please do produce them. As for not responding to you, there are two reasons for that: 1) I have a life and occasionally step away from the computer; and 2) you did not ping me in your response, so I had no idea you had responded. As it stands now, I have offered my final comment on the matter. It is clear that the animus between you and me will prevent any further useful discussion. I will no longer review Draft:Una Nation, but will leave that task to other editors. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I responded to what YOU said. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61 I appreciate you stepping back. It's MUCH better now. Here are the references (without your bias):
1. The Washington Times, [1]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/27/elizabeth-warren-offered-enrollment-una-nation-unr/;
2. KVAL-TV, [2]https://kval.com/news/local/mixed-blood-tribe-seeks-connection-to-native-american-ancestors;
3. The Bulwark, [3]https://www.thebulwark.com/is-elizabeth-warrens-campaign-already-over/
4. OregonLive (government website), [4]https://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/HCR16/;
5. LegiScan, [5]https://legiscan.com/OR/bill/HCR16/2015;
6. City of Springfield, Oregon (government website), [6]https://laserfiche.springfield-or.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1274041&dbid=0&repo=City-of-Springfield-Laserfiche&cr=1;
EXTERNAL LINK: [7]https://www.UnaNation.org, official website
For the size of article, I would say it is sourced properly per wikipedia and is ready for publish. I wish you well, Dan. Really. LivingWellat50 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kien Ziwahatan of the Una (March 20)[edit]

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:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
Jamiebuba (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

And this is a request made to help you - if you look at the deletion debates for the city-recognized article, there is a truly unacceptable comment by you. I think you can recognise that. From my long experience, editors who continue to make such comments almost always get blocked, even if only temporarily. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Doug. Appreciate it. LivingWellat50 (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! LivingWellat50, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LivingWellat50,
It seems to me that you might need a place where you can bring your questions to experienced editors who have nothing to do with reviewing draft articles you have written. If you have questions about article creation, sourcing or other aspects of Wikipedia policy, bring them to the Teahouse. I would approach other editors with an attitude of good faith and not assuming bias where there is none. We are all here to work together to build an encyclopedia that follows Wikipedia standards. This is a collaborative editing project and getting along with other editors is almost as important as any content you write. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LivingWellat50&oldid=1215289813"