User talk:Jms6000

This is Jms6000's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dioscorea hastifolia has been accepted[edit]

Dioscorea hastifolia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Passenger pigeon (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Adnate (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 Theroadislong 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Adnate and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Matt Adnate, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jms6000! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Teira (September 18)[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 Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Madeiran wall lizard instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There already is an article on this species. If the objective of this submission is to have a separate stub article on the genus consisting of one species as distinct from the species itself, please resubmit with an explanation to that effect, and with a taxobox for a genus.

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:Teira and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Teira, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Teira has been accepted[edit]

Teira, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have redirected and partly merged this page to Madeiran wall lizard. It is a standard organizational principle among taxonomic articles on WP that monotypic taxa are treated in one location only - either the genus or the species. In this case, as the species page is older and well-developed, I have merged there. Robert McClenon was correct in his original decline, and I'm not quite sure why he accepted the article on the second attempt? IF there is ever a reassignment that results in multiple species in this genus, the articles can of course be split. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Matt Adnate[edit]

Hello, Jms6000. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Matt Adnate".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuits[edit]

Hi - I'm Girth Summit, an administrator here. I see that you have been trying to get some changes made to Digestive biscuit. It appears that quite a few editors disagree with your changes, and have reverted them. Please don't keep trying to reinstate them: go to the article's talk page (here), and make the case for the changes. When editors disagree, we rely on consensus-building to determine what any article says. Don't engage in edit warring. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 13:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K Geaham is prancing around trying to erase my insertion of something true because he doesn't personally know it. He discredits my sources without any substance other than his opinion that they are 'terrible sources'. If Wikipedia is to be a place of truth, I think this crappy reversion to old ideas is a load of nonsense. I will attend to your suggestion for discussion. Jms6000 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of my sources literally contained an undeniable primary source of an advertisement from a specific time period, pre the time period stated in the now reverted article. Jms6000 (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The place to have this conversation is on the article's talk page - not here, where nobody will see it, and not in edit summaries as you revert one another back and forth. From the article's history, I see three different people reverting your edits at the article, so this isn't just one person randomly reverting you. You need to make the case for your changes. I will give you a couple of pointers though:

The Foods of England website is user-generated - see WP:UGC, it wouldn't be considered a reliable source. You're unlikely to be able to convince people that it's a valid source.
The Old Foodie is a blog, which is covered by WP:SPS. For it to be deemed reliable, you would need to establish that the author is a subject-matter expert. It seems to me that this may be the case - the blog seems to be maintained by Janet Clarkson, a food writer of some note, whose books have been published by print houses like Greenwood and Rowman & Littlefield. This listing on Waterstones seems to suggest that her book 'Food History Almanac' was reviewed by a number of academics. I think this is the better of the two sources, you may be able to convince people that it's usable.

I don't personally want to get involved in the discussion - I know nothing about the digestive biscuit, aside from the fact that it is inferior to the Hobnob. I'm just giving you some tips on how to take this discussion forward. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 11:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your lovely and thoughtful comment Jms6000 (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. FWIW, I expect that it would be possible to write an article about Janet Clarkson herself. I haven't done an extensive source review, but if her work is being reviewed by academics then she would probably pass the WP:NAUTHOR notability criteria. Might be more interesting than arguing over the history of the digestive :) Girth Summit _(blether) 14:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, and I just realised that we have an article about the Abernethy biscuit already - might be of interest. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Bagumba. Your recent edit to the page Russell Westbrook appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]