Open main menu

Baker Demonstration School

Thanks for the advice about Clara Belle Baker. I'm also working on an update of the Baker Demonstration School site. When I'm finished I'd love to submit it to you for review. But before I do that...

I'd like to remove/report the references to Donald Rumsfeld going to Baker Demonstration School. What's the process for that? I deleted it - which was probably not the step to take - and saw that you put it back in.

It should be deleted for several reasons. First, the reference site that is used claimed that it gathered information from Mr. Rumsfeld memoir "Known and Unknown." No where in that memoir does it refer to Baker Demonstration School. Also, the site is riddled with other errors about Mr. Rumsfeld's life. For example, while the site claims that Mr. Rumsfeld was born in Evanston, the direct evidence from his memoir indicates otherwise:

"My father had spent most of his youth and first years of marriage in modest apartments in the city and was eager to move his family to a house in the suburbs. When I was six, we moved to nearby Evanston, home of Northwestern University, and then finally to a house in Winnetka, a small suburb to the north."

I have to conclude that http://www.litlovers.com/reading-guides/13-fiction/8453-know-and-unknown-rumsfeld?start=1 is an unreliable source.

I am also planning on deleting/reporting the reference to Charlton Heston. The site used as a reference for that: (https://jwcdaily.com/sheridanroadmagazine/2014/01/30/article-1391104271004/) clearly is using Wikipedia itself as a source. Furthermore, you can see on the Charlton Heston page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston#Early_years there is debate over whether he ever lived in Evanston, and no confirmable evidence that he attended Baker Demonstration.

Should I delete those references and mentions - or report them?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InquirEDlearn (talkcontribs) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't restore the Rumsfeld reference, I just reformatted some things and found a better reference for some. In any case, the rule is that anybody can edit any article. If you've got a legitimate reason to make a change, just go ahead an make it. The process can be somewhat chaotic, but amazingly enough, it usually ends up working out just fine. Another possibility, if you believe a source doesn't meet our reliability requirements, might be to tag the citation with Template:Better source or Template:Dubious, or any of the myriad other tags we've got available in Template:Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates. But, fixing it yourself is better than just tagging it and leaving it to somebody else to fix.
One more thing I should add. Looking at possible sources with a critical eye (as you are indeed doing) is a valuable and essential skill. Many potential sources are of dubious value at best, and should be ignored. Blogs and other user generated content are legion. Some sources, if you look carefully, are just parroting what other sources (sometimes wikipedia article) say. Having the perseverance to find the best, most reliable, sources, is important. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-05

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Babbitt Fairchild

Hello RoySmith. Could you or one.of your talk page followers please move this deleted article to draft space or direct me to the appropriate venue to make such a request? There are articles on his father, two of his sons, and his family. I'd like to see.what was there before I at least redirect the subject title. Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Now at Draft:Arthur Babbitt Fairchild. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

  Administrator changes

  EnterpriseyJJMC89
  BorgQueen
  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes

 Enterprisey

  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

  Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-06

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


Crystal mush

Dear RoySmith, Thank you for reviewing this Crystal Mush page (Crystal_mush). You have assessed it as C-class. May you please indicate what are its major weaknesses and strengths leading to this grade? This page was part of a teaching exercise and your opinion is very useful.

Thank you.

Julien Leuthold

Hi Julien, and thanks for your note. The way the AfC system works, when you accept an article, you get prompted to assign it a quality rating. The ratings are described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Grading scheme. To be honest, I think the quality grading system is a little silly, in that there's way too many possible grades, with too many subtle distinctions between them. As as result, I don't put much effort into the evaluation. At AfC, I'm really just looking to see if it passes the bar to get promoted to mainspace. Your article clearly did. In fact, it's a very nice piece of work and you are to be commended for your efforts. There's so much drek that comes through AfD, seeing something this good really makes my day. One criticism I could make is that you rely more on WP:PRIMARY sources than on WP:SECONDARY sources. This is common with science articles, and is really just a issue of scientific papers being written in a different style from encyclopedia articles. I suggest you ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology; the folks there will be more familiar with the subject matter than I am, and will be able to provide more specific advice. They'll also be better qualified to re-assess the article than I am. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ might also be helpful. Again, I think this is a really nice piece of work. Thank you for your contribution to the encyclopedia, and I hope you stay around to write more articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your feedbacks. You suggestions are very useful and I will consider them for the next similar exercise. I am very happy you enjoyed the article and hope you could understand most of its content.Julien.leuthold (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

David Nemer

Dear RoySmith- I hope this note finds you well. We've been discussing the deletion review for the article on David Nemer, and last week, I have created a draft based on the portuguese article on him and have also added other sources. I'm not sure what would the next step be. I was hoping to have it restored so other people could help me improve it. The article in portuguese has grown quite a bit- and maybe these people would contribute to the english article. David Nemer's wikiquote articles (EN and PT) are also there. Thanks a bunch in advance! --Wikisharktank (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion is to just let the DRV discussion proceed to its conclusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Thank you, RoySmith. I just got a notification that the DRV discussion is closed, and the conclusion was to let the article to be drafted and, then, have an editor moving it to the main space whenever he/she finds it ready. I have prepared the draft a while ago, and some people went there and also contributed to the article. Could you please take a look at it and check if you deem it ready? Thanks! --Wikisharktank (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
You should submit it for review. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. In a nutshell, just add, {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. If you're using the visual editor, you can do this with Insert/Template, then type "submit" in the "Add a template" box. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Netcoins

Why delete the draft article for Netcoins? It's a notable publicly traded company, world first in the Bitcoin industry, widely cited in media and online. Nearly $100M in revenue. Others less notable are included in Wikipedia.

Cryptocurrency spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Or do you just have a bias / discrimination against Bitcoin? Perhaps you're not the right person to make that assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.198.124 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to bring this to WP:DRV if you like. FYI, Bkissin. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I've now posted there for review. If you need more clarification on the company/industry, I'd be happy to explain. It's definitely not Cryptocurrency spam, quick Google news search will confirm this. If you're willing to un-delete, that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.198.124 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Beharia

Sir RoySmith,

  Beharia---- My article is an simple article. I have corrected as far as possible .If you can spare your valuable time I will be very grateful to you    Thanking you.  Uploadsou14 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Glad I could be of assistance. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-07

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The American Economist

Dear RoySmith, you were the one to review the draft I created for the Journal The American Economist. Upon reviewing you decided that there were copyrighted parts of it and deleted the entire page. I plan to recreate the document and would just like further explanation as to what was copyrighted so I do not make the same mistake again. I believe you thought the table describing the Articles in the Journal written by Nobel Laureates was copyrighted but there was a reference for it. Am I missing some other piece that you believe deserved the action of deleting the entire page instead of allowing me to make edits before publication? Thank you. written 2/14/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemcgowan (talkcontribs) 19:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see you've gone ahead and recreated this, with exactly the same copyright problem. Honoring copyright is one of the strongest and most inflexible rules we have on wikipedia, and I've thus had to delete this again. Please take a look at WP:CV and understand our copyright policy before attempting to recreate this again. In a nutshell, you can't copy somebody else's work. Even if you reference it, you still can't copy it. That's what you've done here. You copied entire paragraphs from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-american-economist/journal202419. That material is copyrighted (see the "© 2019 SAGE Publications" at the bottom of the page). That means we cannot have it on our servers, in any form, even with proper attribution. You can use the information, but you can't use the text, either literally, or as a close paraphrase. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
By the way, I'm guessing you may have some connection with the journal or with Omicron Delta Epsilon. If so, please take a look at WP:COI to understand our conflict of interest rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nathan Lee (February 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RoySmith was:  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.
-- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for your feedback. I searched for some reviews of the subject, and found the review from the Washington Post to be critical, as it stated "What was less discernible in Lee’s playing Sunday afternoon was the nascent sense of an original voice, that quality that lifts a performance from a simulacrum of the music to an authentic utterance, born of necessity." I would appreciate if you could give some pointers on how to approve the article before resubmission, if you think it is worth working on. For example, should I change "mixed" to "positive ?"

Berlecalm (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Berlecalm

Hmmm, I vaguely remember seeing this question before. Did I neglect to answer it somewhere else? If so, I apologize. Music is not my field of expertise, so I may have missed some of the nuances of the review. Maybe you're OK the way it is, but another possibility would be to say something like, "the NYT and SunBreak were enthusiastic (quotes here). The Washington Post, on the other hand, was more critical (quote here)". Just a suggestion. You could go ahead and resubmit it and see what another reviewer thinks. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for the advice. I appreciate your help.

Berlecalm (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

hello nice to meet you

My name is ImmortalWizard. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Same here. I see your decision as wise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Constitutional_rights_of_pregnant_inmates Bandwidth is cheap to free so it is not necessary to delete but to merge/redirect is better. Some in Wikipedia foam at the mouth and want to destroy and delete a lot of things. I am more tolerant. As long as it is not inflammatory, BLP violating, or clearly rubbish, merge is fine. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-08

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Louis Sola

You closed a Deletion Review at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_January_30#Louis_Sola as Endorsed. It isn't entirely clear to me whether you are saying that the deletion decision was correct and a new article should not be evaluated, or whether you are saying that the deletion decision was correct at the time but a new article may be evaluated. If the former, I will decline the current draft again. If the latter, I will review the draft again, and will probably accept it. What was the significance of the Endorse? (We had never been questioning whether the original deletion was correct, but whether it had changed.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note. I've updated my close to address your question. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Endless recreation

Conspiracy Series with Shane Dawson seems to be the latest attempt to recreate the page previously deleted after AfD discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Series by Shane Dawson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Shane Dawson Conspiracy Series and of course Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Series (Special Edition). Persistent! Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Unfortunately, I think this meets the not substantially identical exclusion to WP:G4, so I don't think I can delete it on sight. I suggest bringing it to AfD, where I suspect it'll go down in flames. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-09

21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond

February 27, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan
(note this month we will be meeting in Midtown Manhattan, not at Babycastles)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 09:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Saturday March 2: MoMA Art+Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art+Feminism’s sixth-annual MoMA Wikipedia Edit-a-thon will take place at the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Education and Research Building, The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 4 West 54 Street, on Saturday, March 2, 2019 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. People of all gender identities and expressions are encouraged to attend.

And on Sunday this weekend:

Stay tuned for other Art+Feminism and related edit-a-thons throughout the month!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Citing Sources

Could you explain the reason for this revert:

Or if this was a simple mistake or accidemnt please correct it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoops. Yeah, I was on a mobile device and got an accidental mis-click. I thought I had canceled it, but I guess not. Thanks for pointing it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the fix.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Maruch Santíz Gómez

Hello Roy, thanks for reviewing the draft of this article. I'm not sure about the criteria in considering the article as promotional, or if you can support me pointing me the paragraphs or the parts that you are considering as promotion. Greetings from Mexico, ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hola. It's hard to point to any specific thing, but the whole article just has a tone of trying to show the subject in the best possible light, with flowery language. Phrases like, "communitarian immersive research" sound more like what you'd see in an advertisement than in an encyclopedia. It might be useful to read WP:TONE. My Spanish is pretty poor, but looking at es:Maruch_Santíz_Gómez (and a little help from Google Translate), it looks like this comes from, "Maruch realiza un proceso de investigación inmersiva comunitaria". I'll agree that's probably an accurate translation, but it still comes out like it's trying to sell the reader on something.
One thing that's complicated with translating articles from other wikis is that each wiki has their own rules and customs. Here on the English wikipedia, we're careful to avoid promotional language. I don't know what the Spanish wiki does; such writing may be entirely accepted there. So, if you start with something that's promotional, the translation becomes tricky.
You'll also want to read WP:Translate#How to translate to review our requirements for proper attribution. You said in your initial edit comment, "Starting translation from Spanish article.", but we need something more specific than that.
I hope that's been useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-10

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

  Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sharmeena Begum

Hi Roy, Thanks for your comment as part of the AfD closure. I have rewritten the hatnote. Hopefully it is clearer now. Obviously it will need to be updated if their statuses change. I agree with the point re. Daily Mail - especially since it seems all the other sources for this section refer back to it. However, the Evening Standard - which is considered reliable - picks up the report and seems to add their own editorial which confirms the story, so I'm inclined to accept this. It's useful to keep the source in the article as it is mentioned by the other sources. I wouldn't want it on its own, of course. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 14:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. On the DM issue, I simply felt obligated to note the issue. I'll leave it up to your editorial judgement how to handle it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, I just read your revised hatnote wording. I'd strongly suggest you stay away from the "currently" wording. As I stated earlier, consider somebody reading this 10 years from now. The "currently" reference is going to be meaningless. Take a look at the similar hatnote at Shamima Begum, which is worded better, because it will still make sense to somebody reading it in the distant future. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-11

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Smeller (Scent Performance Technology)

Hello Roy, Thanks for your comment on the title! I changed the title so it should be more fitting now. I am pretty new to Wikipedia and am glad for every help I can get to improve my article and editing. --Alecsodian 11:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Help with Deleted NetBase Solutions page

Hi @RoySmith, I was hoping to start a conversation regarding the notability discussion/deletion of NetBase Solutions page. We missed the review discussion period and are only now realizing our Wikipedia page was recently deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NetBase_Solutions#NetBase_Solutions

It's suggested to reach out to the admin who deleted our page first, so I wanted to see if there were any actions you'd recommend to either A. get this page undeleted or B.recreate the page that has sufficient notability. Many of the sources of this original wikipedia page were decidedly outdated and we'd be happy to update them in hopes of providing threshold of significance.

Appreciate your time, ScottHin45 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)ScottHin45

I assume your use of "we" implies you have some business relationship with the subject. Please see WP:COI and [13], in particular "Paid contributions without disclosure". Beyond that, the AfD was unanimous that this did not meet WP:GNG. You can ask for a review, but based on what I saw in the AfD, it's very unlikely it'll get overturned. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-12

19:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library

March 20, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Metropolitan New York Library Council in Midtown Manhattan. Is there a project you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? A Wiki* skill you'd like to learn? Let us know by adding it to the agenda.

We will also follow up on plans for recent and upcoming edit-a-thons, museum and library projects, education initiatives, and other outreach activities.

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Metropolitan New York Library Council (8th floor) at 599 11th Avenue, Manhattan
(note this month we will be meeting in Midtown Manhattan, not at Babycastles)

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! This month, optional post-meetup drinks afterward at 9pm!--Wikimedia New York City Team 18:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Saturday March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library Art+Feminism Editathon

Organized by Asia Art Archive in America]and Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs of the New York Public Library and in collaboration with Asia Art Archive in Hong Kong, the Art+Feminism: Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on Women in Art in Asia helps participants edit Wikipedia to create and improve articles about women artists and practitioners in and from Asia, including architects, designers, filmmakers, curators, and art historians. Books and research materials—as well as refreshments—will be provided.

Also check out other Art+Feminism and related edit-a-thons throughout the month!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

NetBase AfD original page copy request

Hi RoySmith, Thank you for your comment and help on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NetBase_Solutions. Full discloser I have a COI with NetBase, with whom I work. Would you be able to provide the deleted page content that I may review to better understand the AfD dicsussion? Thanks again! --ScottHin45 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Before anything else can happen, you need to make the appropriate disclosure on your user page per WP:DISCLOSE. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith,

Thanks again for your assistance. I have disclosed my COI according to WP:DISCLOSE guidelines. With that in place, could I request a copy of the deleted page content? Question, if I provided additional Notability references to the above NetBase article, do you believe that would be enough to warrant a review? Would my COI prevent my involvement in this process? Thank you!ScottHin45 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing anything at User:ScottHin45. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. You put it on your talk page. I moved it to your user page. I've restored the deleted page to User:ScottHin45/NetBase Solutions. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The WP:THREE best sources

Hi RoySmith,

I am writing to let you know I have the three sources you requested regarding my article for submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Event_Tickets_Center#History

They are:

https://searchengineland.com/amp-ecommerce-case-study-event-ticket-center-277444 https://www.stonetemple.com/amp-case-study/event-tickets-center/ https://advertise.bingads.microsoft.com/en-us/insights/stories/event-tickets-center

Also check out: https://www.ampproject.org/case-studies/event_ticket_center/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemfandango223 (talkcontribs) 21:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I resubmitted the article for review. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemfandango223 (talkcontribs) 21:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Maryevhill/sandbox

It doesn't appear to be an autobiography but an advertisement for a book by the author. Same principle, but slightly clearer case, because autobiographies are strongly discouraged, but advertising is forbidden. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dorothy Hague

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dorothy Hague. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 157.52.12.31 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "RoySmith/Archive 21".