User talk:TheUnlimitedGod

Hello, TheUnlimitedGod, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rise (play) has been accepted[edit]

Rise (play), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: True Grandeur (April 11)[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. 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:True Grandeur 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:True Grandeur, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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) 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUnlimitedGod! 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) 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cal Barnes (May 5)[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 DGG was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

a litle too promotional. Remove minoro material, such as the jobs he had in his youth, and also his plans for the future. Focus on what he has actually accomplished. Substantial 3rd party independent published reliable reviews for his novel would certainly help .

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:Cal Barnes 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:Cal Barnes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cal Barnes (May 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still reads like an ad, especially with the name dropping. Needs to show which roles are lead roles in notable productions per WP:ENT. Saying he has a supporting role in a film that stars (more notable actors) does not help. Need more secondary news sources that focus on Barnes's life and career.

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:Cal Barnes 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:Cal Barnes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cal Barnes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: True Grandeur (September 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 Whispering 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. 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:True Grandeur 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:True Grandeur, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

Whispering^(t) 13:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Astrid Experience (January 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 Curb Safe Charmer 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 films). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NFILM. Sources are all either based on interviews with the director or his own website.

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:The Astrid Experience 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:The Astrid Experience, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, TheUnlimitedGod. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Astrid Experience (February 11)[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 Sulfurboy was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Mostly primary or unreliable sources. Also probably a case of WP:TOOSOON

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:The Astrid Experience 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:The Astrid Experience, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Astrid Experience (February 28)[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 Sulfurboy 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 films). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

How many views on youtube the trailer has gotten has zero effect on proving the notability of the subject. I recommend reviewing the standards of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG

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:The Astrid Experience 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:The Astrid Experience, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: True Grandeur (February 29)[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 AngusWOOF was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more critical reviews not from random wixsites and blogspot / wordpress. Need more Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, New York Times, School Library Journal

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:True Grandeur 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:True Grandeur, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Astrid Experience (May 17)[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 Sulfurboy 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. 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Coverage in a couple of trade magazines is not compelling. Also IMDB is considered unreliable and cannot be used as a source.

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:The Astrid Experience 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:The Astrid Experience, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:True Grandeur[edit]

Hello, TheUnlimitedGod. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "True Grandeur".

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 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Astrid Experience (November 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 ReaderofthePack 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 films). 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:The Astrid Experience 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:The Astrid Experience, 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.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

You need to clarify your conflict of interest here, as you have pretty much only edited or created articles about or related to Cal Barnes. Are you Barnes, someone affiliated, or are someone who was otherwise asked or hired to edit pages? You can edit with a conflict of interest but you MUST be transparent about it. To be very honest, it looks extremely likely that you do have a strong conflict of interest here. Again, it's fine to edit with a conflict of interest as long as you are transparent - trying to hide or otherwise evade concerns about the conflict of interest is what can get you in trouble and end up getting you blocked. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reader of the Pack. Thank you for taking the time to give great notes on my sources for 'The Astrid Experience'. I knew Cal Barnes briefly growing up, but I would not consider us close friends. I love films, and he is one of the only notable actors ever from my hometown, so I enjoy doing it. I am not affiliated with his career or employed with his business in any way. I also make other edits from time to time - mostly on films - but because of the childhood connection I mainly just focus on things he does, as I work several jobs and don't have much spare time. I hope that clarifies. Thank you. TheUnlimitedGod 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Understandable - I don't really think that this would pose any real conflict of interest in my opinion. (ie, you're not in contact with him and you don't benefit from the articles financially or professionally.) I can understand wanting to write about someone you knew! Just be careful with sourcing and the like since it could technically be seen as a mild COI. Definitely feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. Film articles are really my jam. I'm more focused on horror movies, but I'm generally good with other genres. This brochure on editing film articles may be pretty helpful and while it's written for students, these training modules give a general overview of editing and may fill in any gaps you may have with editing and such. (Used to work for the organization that made them, but found them so helpful I've kept them bookmarked.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Reader of the Pack. Thank you for sharing. Look like we both have a love for movies and for those who make them! I'll be sure to reach out with anymore questions. Thank you.

TheUnlimitedGod 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Book articles[edit]

Hey, thought I'd give you some help with the book article, Draft:True Grandeur, and help explain why it keeps getting declined.

I retitled the editions section as "publication" since this was more to the point. I also streamlined the content to be a bit more to the point and in keeping with other book articles. I clarified that the hardback was a collector's edition and sourced it to the book itself and the official website. I removed mention of where to buy the book, since that can seem a little spammy. It also saves us from having to correct it when/if the book becomes available elsewhere in digital format.

The plot section needs to be whittled down to a basic synopsis. In most cases the synopsis only needs to be about 4-5 paragraphs long max, otherwise it runs the risk of being too detailed and bogging down the article.

The characters section is OK, but be careful of original research - by which I mean interpretations that we come up with on our own. It's also good to be careful of writing too in-universe or adding too many minor details.

Make sure that you italicize the book title.

The review section needs to be overhauled. Many of the sources aren't usable since they're self-published sources such as book blogs. The thing about book blogs is that anyone can make one and they undergo little to no editorial oversight, so most won't be considered reliable sources as far as Wikipedia goes. This is pretty much the case for blogs in general, to be honest, and it's really difficult to establish a blog as a reliable source because we have to be able to show where they're routinely described as a reliable source by other reliable sources. This can often mean showing where the blog has been cited as a source by academic and scholarly sources (since they tend to be very discerning with sourcing) and/or received or been nominated for major awards for news/blogging. For example, a sci-fi book blog could be seen as unusable on its own, but if we can show where it's been cited in multiple academic sources such as a book published by Routledge (major academic publisher) and it was up for a Hugo Award for Best Fanzine, then we can make a strong argument for its reliability. Since there are typically more blogs than outlets or awards that would cover them, most typically won't be seen as reliable. It's a frustrating and often lengthy process to get one of these seen as reliable and in most cases, it ends up being unsuccessful.

Many of the reviews are paid, so they wouldn't be seen as reliable because of the conflict of interest. For example, Reader's Favorite is seen as a vanity site since they never give a book less than 4 stars and are very well known for giving out good reviews and awards to anyone willing to pay. They do offer one free review, but that's still considered suspect since the goal with that is to get the person to go on to their paid services. In other words, paid reviews are extremely unlikely to give negative reviews of the books or cushion any negative remarks with plenty of positive ones as they want the author/publisher to continue using their service and recommend it to others. Negative reviews are rarely met with good reception, even if it's a case of someone just being honest and not unkind. With Kirkus, if you're wondering, there are two parts: Kirkus and Kirkus Indie. The first is the main parent organization - they don't charge a fee for books reviewed through this portion. Kirkus Indie is a paid review service, so reviews from this end aren't seen as reliable. This book was reviewed through Kirkus Indie, so it isn't really usable.

In My Area is a bit weird, so it would need to be run through reliable sources noticeboard to see if it's reliable. International Writers Inspiring Change is also questionable - there's no information about their editorial process and some of the links don't work, which isn't a good sign when it comes to reliability. Still, I'd run it by the reliable sources noticeboard as well.

The development section uses a book blog and a site that uses a basic form for interviews. This isn't ideal, but it could probably squeak by since we could argue that since it's an interview, it's more of a primary source than one that would be used to establish notability. The main issue with this would be verification, since presumably the sites don't really vet the information.

Ultimately the biggest issue here is one of notability, since the article relies heavily on book blogs, paid review sites, and similar to establish notability. It can be difficult to establish notability for books and in the past I've actually ended up having to delete drafts sitting in my userspace after years of searching for sourcing. The more indie or niche a book is the less likely it seems like it will receive coverage, unfortunately.

My recommendation here would be to boil this all down into a single paragraph and add it to Barnes's article, however you've already done this so unless more sourcing becomes available there's not much to be done. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Ed also did a brochure on book articles as well! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reader of the Pack. Thank you for all the great information and clarification on this subject. Barnes published True Grandeur in 2017. Does it carry any weight if the book is authored by a notable person? In this case, a notable actor and filmmaker? It is clear that Barnes has since moved on to other projects, so it is uncertain if there will be any more coverage on the novel. I suppose it is possible with his growing body of work that larger review publications will find it in the future and review it, as I've seen it happen many times with actors and writers. As their careers continue to grow, people discover their past works. TheUnlimitedGod 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, as notability is not inherited by Barnes being notable in other areas. It can make it more likely that the book will gain coverage, particularly as he goes on to do more work that becomes notable, but it's never really a guarantee. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

True Grandeur, 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 Redirect-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. 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!

DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Astrid Experience[edit]

Hello, TheUnlimitedGod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Astrid Experience, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Astrid Experience (April 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 films). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Now that it's been released, needs critical reception and box office beyond the one location.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Astrid Experience and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Astrid Experience (August 27)[edit]

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 S0091 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

S0091 (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Astrid Experience[edit]

Hello, TheUnlimitedGod. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Astrid Experience".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]