User talk:Jacobsatterfield

Welcome!

Hello, Jacobsatterfield, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ndunruh (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of USMTF

The article USMTF has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

only references are footnotes, fails GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 16:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Jacobsatterfield. Thank you for your work on Stanley Hundred. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for adding this content from a Historical Marker Database. However, one source isn't enough to establish notability, and the content is so brief that it's best included with a broader topic, like that the shire (the page there is also very short). You can find out more about merging at WP:MERGING.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain:Hi, thanks for the attempted cleanup. That's a fairly recent added stub and I disagree with the bold merge, it should have been discussed. Even if consensus is to be merged, there may be better merge targets than Warwick Shire, such as George Yeardley. Assuming this was a bulk/bot edit, I may revert in the near future and add some additional content and sources, or change merge target to something more relevant. Jacobsatterfield (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't at all a bot merge, but rather a reasoned action for the reason I gave. Note that No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial (see WP:MERGE), and with only one source a new page is subject to deletion as part of new page patrol; it clear fails WP:GNG, so merging is an alternative to deletion. Klbrain (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain:Ok, fair enough. I'll discuss at some point with members of the local Warwick Historical Society and see if they can provide additional independent sources to meet GNG, and edit as required. I believe several books include references, but don't have them offhand. Thanks for your commitment to attempting to maintain article quality. Jacobsatterfield (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding; book sources would be great, but even then consider building and improving existing articles rather than creating new ones - fewer clicks for readers as they navigate the content, with less overlap and better context. Klbrain (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Stanley Hundred

Hello Jacobsatterfield, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Stanley Hundred, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Hundred.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: I was in the middle of major additions to that article while you proposed deletion. Significantly more content and sources, please help revise if you still feel it does not meet your expectations. Update is now live. Thanks. Jacobsatterfield (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the AfD. Not that if you're in the middle of major amendments, it's best to place template:in use or template:under construction to let others know not to act on the current content. Klbrain (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the lesson, will keep that in mind - I've never seen such real-time activity on wikipedia before. Usually things seem to move in days or weeks, not minutes. ;) Jacobsatterfield (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as First Denbigh Parish Church Archeological Site. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Thanks Dianna, yes, these sources are very old and government owned/public record, i'll review and apply the attribution template. Jacobsatterfield (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Denbigh Parish Church

Thanks for your note. I can't immediately answer you: I used to keep extensive NR documentation on my computer, but since I emigrated in 2021, I've deleted most of it, and what I've kept is only on an external hard drive. I own a copy of the 1999 edition of Calder Loth's book about Virginia Landmarks Register sites, but — like the hard drive — it's at home, and I'm going to be away for part of the weekend. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]