User talk:ChigoLoft

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ChigoLoft, 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 User:ChigoLoft/sandbox, 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 Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Melcous (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:ChigoLoft/sandbox[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:ChigoLoft/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Melcous (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article you are working on[edit]

Hello and thanks for your message on my talk page. There are some formatting problems with your draft - if you like, I am happy to make some edits to make it conform to the wikipedia manual of style - just let me know if you would like me to do that. The bigger issue is around references and establishing notability. You have websites such as linked in and IMDb as references, these are not acceptable (see WP:UGC), so need to be removed, and if possible independent, third-party reliable sources found for the information, otherwise the information should not be included. You also have content in the article and sources that do not relate directly to Rooks, who seems to be the subject of the article (it needs to be either about a person or about a company, it cannot be about both). If the article is intended to be about Rooks, it still reads more like a resume than an encyclopaedia article. To establish notability, you must demonstrate from independent sources (not connected to Rooks or his companies) that he meets the notability criteria, which I do not think you have yet done. Are there books or newspaper articles that specifically cover him? Please have a look at WP:GNG and WP:BIO and see if he specifically meets the criteria listed. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and offer to assist in editing[edit]

Hi Melcous. Thank you for your reply and clarification of issues in more layman's terms. I now better understand the issues with my article, while now more perplexed in finding solution. I had the article that I had revised internal Wiki links in my Sandbox for close to 12 hours (I had fallen asleep) and missed seeing your message.

In worries of pre-deletion I posted the article for review. I see as I am typing this that the article was rejected, but further explanation and an offer to go to the Teahouse for assistance.

If I understand correctly this means I can try again and place my draft back in my Sandbox where I can work and receive help from you and other Wiki editors then resubmit after revisions and referenced edits.

I am understanding of some of the references issues coming from sources more tied to my subject. I always thought IMDb was a reliable resource for the film industry as additions to their information follow a protocol of confirming information. Where else is considered a reliable film industry source. I see both films Dolemite and Disco Godfather both have their own Wiki articles. Although OLD news, I thought that alone makes Rooks notable since he was an Executive Producer and Producer on these two projects? I see this old news, that I found referenced best to be the building blocks of Rooks involvement in the Entertainment industry.

I understand your point with reference to the shifting of the individual and reference to his company and their purpose. Does that mean eliminating reference to his current title and company or is that exceptable to reference his company "About us" in the most simplest of terms? His company is referenced in Bizapedia as to their filing in Nevada and California.

Certainly I would include his involvement as a Board Member of the Black American Political Association of California (BPAC), that I have seen this validated in print on their report; however, they do not list board members on their site. Also as a Board Member of Hollywood Media Institute, this is a division of his company listed on their website; there is no other reference to Board Members I've found yet; does this mean no reference is made in the article as well as membership in the UN and NAACP?

I'm so confused I'm not even sure this was how I was suppose to respond to you on my talk page using what coding to get your attention Melcous (talk)? Is this coded correct and best to remove our discussion about my page to my talk page? Was this message to go on the bottom of my talk or is it placed correctly under editing our conversation?

Thank you so much for your assistance and offer to help is greatly appreciated. I'm busy for the next few hours. I'll check back later. ChigoLoft (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 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 Ringbang was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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 User:ChigoLoft/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ringbang (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ChigoLoft (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! ChigoLoft, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Ringbang (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Feedback[edit]

Thanks Ringbang (talk) for your input and advice to better compose an acceptable Wiki article. As I get back into my efforts to re-write and attempt to make acceptable revisions to a publishable Wiki article, I will consult back with you and utilize the Teahouse to interact with you and other Wikipedian Editors. I have more research to do on both Wiki procedures and my subject for more external verifiable references. I welcome any edits or suggested revisions once I posted in my Sandbox with a revised draft.

Your draft article, User:ChigoLoft/sandbox[edit]

Hello, ChigoLoft. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. 1989 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]