Buddy011

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (September 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eagleash were:  The comment the reviewer left 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 User:Buddy011/sandbox 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 User:Buddy011/sandbox, 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, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Eagleash (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Buddy011! 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! Eagleash (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You need to explain this edit and your personal attack (see WP:NPA). Your submission is not suitable for Wikipedia as currently written. It is improperly sourced and has been declined in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. The decline notice will be restored to give you the chance to develop the item correctly. You also have the chance to withdraw your attack and maybe apologise to avoid being reported. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your eMail and I appreciate the apology. I will reply here as I've had issues with Wikipedia's eMail system before! The health tag at my userpage is a little out of date now and I should probably remove it as I am as active on Wikipedia as one can be really...
• Your draft item is at User:Buddy011/sandbox. It ought really to be moved to draftspace as that is the preferred location. I shall do that shortly. I have formatted the refs section as it did not show up correctly previously. As previously noted, Wikipedia cannot beused as asource (see WP:UGC). Once I have moved it to draftspace I will resubmit it on your behalf and another reviewer will assess it in due course. Eagleash (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• It is now at Draft:Kennedy Mitchell and is awaiting review. I have cleaned up the referencing (rm'd Wikipedia) and sundry other fixes. Good luck. Eagleash (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for your eMail; please can you reply here, eMail is not generally used and other editors cannot see or join the discussion as a whole. As I say, I have resolved the referencing issues and they now display correctly. If you wish to reply you can add {{ping|Eagleash}} to the start of your message. This will send a notification. Just add what you see on the rendered page here and not the attached Wikicode in the source markup. Note that the 'ping', the message and your signature — type four tildes (~~~~) (just the tildes) at the end of the message — must all be added in one go or it will not work. Eagleash (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• {{ping|Eagleash}} Thank you for your message. Sorry I am new to this and you are an expert, I truly appreciate all of your assistance. I will look at the edits now and will await further review.
• {{ping|Eagleash}} Eagleash - the edits are perfect. The reference to the Kennedy Mitchell Hall of Records (formerly the New haven CT City Hall) says it requires a citation, so I did not want to mess with the code and send you the link to that published Wiki article that already exists, which can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Mitchell_Hall_of_Records

Hello, your pings did not work as you included the Wikipedia markup coding which was used, in this case, so as not to produce an actual 'ping' or I would have been pinging myself in my message to you! Also you did not sign with the four tildes. The 'citation needed' was added after I removed a citation to Wkipedia which as noted, cannot be used as a source. If there is a usable reference in the other article you mention, please feel free to transfer it over. I may look at if I have time to spare, a bit later. Eagleash (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• {{ping|Eagleash}} Okay let me know if this one pings you thanks. I'm not certain I know what you mean by a reference for the Kennedy Mitchell Hall of Records as it was edited and approved by many seasoned Wiki editors like yourself, so clarification would be great on that thanks. You have been a wonderful and helpful individual and appreciate it. (~~~~) (talk)

I'm afraid not; just what is displayed on the page here. No 'code' or 'nowiki'. Same with signature, just the tildes- no brackets. You need a reference that supports the statement made in the Kennedy Mitchell article. Eagleash (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• {{ping|Eagleash}} Hi Mate did this one 'ping' you? Regarding the Hall of Records article isn't it self evident that looking at the article it is confirmed it was named after that individual and is sufficient evidence of reference?? They named it after that person in 1980 what would exist as further proof besides what is in the Wiki article? A picture of the building with his name on it ? Buddy011 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

No, - again, *don't* add in the 'nowiki' or the 'code'. A Wiki article cannot be taken as proof of anything. It does not regard itself as a reliable source as noted at WP:UGC. In addition there is no source at the other page. Wikipedia requires sourcing so the reader can check on verification. Having said that, it's a relatively minor issue and perhaps best left alone; if another WP:AFC participant has an issue with it they will raise it at review. Eagleash (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• {ping|Eagleash} Hi Mate, thank you for your reply, please let me know if this is correct format, you're the best! Buddy011 (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• {ping Hoary} The comment from user "HOARY" is implicitly false as the Cheshire Academy School lists him in their alumni directory as seen on their website https://old-friends.co/school.php?s=14742#1989Buddy011 (talk)
• {ping|Eagleash} Hi Mate - why is this user "hoary" saying they are rejecting the article because they cannot find me in the Cheshire Academy alum directory ?!?! Its listed on their website https://old-friends.co/school.php?s=14742#1989 I asked the user and no reply it could be a personal vendetta against my client? Buddy011 (talk)

OK, getting closer, you need two curly brackets, not one, at each end of the 'ping' also the 'pipe' ('|') is missing from the ping to Hoary. @Hoary: (pinging Hoary in case they wish to add anything here). What they said is that the reference as included in the article does not mention Mitchell (which I agree with). If another webpage includes the information, that is what should be used as a reference. Reviewers, readers etc. cannot be expected to second guess where information might be available. It's moot really because that is not why the draft has been declined and rejected. In Hoary's opinion the subject fails the notability guidelines and has already been the subject of a discussion and an earlier item was deleted. It's not any sort of vendetta or any thing remotely like it. Wikipedia only contains article on topics that pass the notability guidelines. Hoary has seemingly given you the information to appeal his decision if you so wish.

However, before you edit further there is an issue which Wikipedia takes really very seriously. One of your rep0lies above refers to 'my client'. Wikipedia is not keen on editors with a conflict of interest and positively dislikes paid ediotrs. You now need to read both those pages and make any necessary declarations. Or, make a statement here that you have no connection with Kennedy and have not been paid to create an article. You should not edit further until the situation is resolved.

• {ping|Eagleash} {ping|Hoary} Hello, thank you for your comments - I do not have any affiliation with Kennedy Mitchell. He was and is a recognized member of the financial system and is a notable figure in finance. I am a journalist in fact lol. Mitchell also wrote a ground-breaking book on a new financial product which is notable, and is verified. It is continued to be used in universities as reading material even though it was published in 2002. I could easily dissect articles from user 'hoary' and have them deleted, yet I trust that user's discretion and find comments like "Kennedy Mitchell never attended Cheshire Academy" an outright false statement because a simple glance at the alum page for that school shows him listed. That was user "hoary" initial objection so should be stood by, not later coming up with multiple other facets of disapproval, because it is proven that comment was inherently false. I declare I have no affiliation with Kennedy Mitchell, have never been paid by him, and am writing the article because he is a man of significance.Buddy011 (talk)

Please do not use the eMail system, discussions should be open and transparent. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. bonadea contributions talk 20:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kennedy Mitchell (September 26)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Hoary was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Mitchell. If this isn't convincing, consider that virtually nothing here (aside from a single incident) comes with references, the little "referencing" elsewhere is feeble: for example, he "was educated at the Cheshire Academy in Cheshire, Connecticut"; but when I click on the "reference" for that, I arrive at a web page that doesn't mention him. Anyone believing either that the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Mitchell was seriously defective at the time (very late '19) or that reliable sources show that Mitchell's notability has significantly increased since that time should take up the matter with RL0919, who closed that discussion; or, if RL0919 is unavailable, should carefully read the prologue to Wikipedia:Deletion review, and, if still convinced that the article merits resuscitation/improvement, should bring up the matter there.

Hoary (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Kennedy Mitchell has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kennedy Mitchell. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Eagleash: {ping|Hoary} Appears you self-proclaimed geniuses don't even look at what you do yourselves, look at the link that shows Kennedy Mitchell as a notable alum of Cheshire Academy... http://yamm.finance/wiki/Cheshire_Academy.html...according to hoary (appropriate name btw) he never attended that place lol Buddy011 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Buddy011 (talk)

No idea what you need. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

[PA redacted]

What in the world is notable about some guy named Kennedy Mitchell?? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

"He was and is a recognized member of the financial system and is a notable figure in finance. I am a journalist in fact lol. Mitchell also wrote a ground-breaking book on a new financial product which is notable, and is verified. It is continued to be used in universities as reading material even though it was published in 2002." BECAUSE YOU SAY SO. Nope, not enough to show he's notable. You need reliable sources for every one of those statements, and you haven't got any. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)