User talk:Gawitt

April 2022

Hello, I'm Notcharizard. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Waterlooville have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzi Scheff edit

I am reverting your addition of an IMDb citation to Fritzi Scheff. Unfortunately, IMDb is not a reliable source. (See WP:IMDB.) Eddie Blick (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Viewmont Viking. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of an article. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. 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. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Greg Isaacs (May 20)

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

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:Greg Isaacs 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:Greg Isaacs, 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 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.

Hatchens (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "advertorial" content. Isaacs is a public figure as well as an analyst for cable and local programming. He's worked on many high-profile cases.

Other similar pages for attorneys include: Andrew S. Boutros, Barbara A. Bintliff, Nina Basu

There is extensive supporting documentation here from multiple outlets that include local, regional and national coverage of Isaacs and his cases, including references to books, television clips and long-form articles that outside, credible, journalism outlets produced. Gawitt (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gawitt! Having an article draft 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! Hatchens (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Greg Isaacs (May 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by PK650 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Greg Isaacs 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:Greg Isaacs, 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 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.

PK650 (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Greg Isaacs (May 23)

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

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:Greg Isaacs 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:Greg Isaacs, 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 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.

PRAXIDICAE💕 16:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for your draft

Hi, I glanced at your article, Draft:Greg Isaacs. You need to remove all of the external URLs in the body. External URLs can only be cited (as in, between <ref> and </ref> tags) or in an External links section at the end of the page. Also, to link to a wikipedia article, you simply put the article title between double-brackets, as in [[2016 Great Smoky Mountains wildfires#Investigation and arrests]], which will produce the following: 2016 Great Smoky Mountains wildfires#Investigation and arrests, or you can add an alternate title after a pipe (|), as in [[2016 Great Smoky Mountains wildfires#Investigation and arrests|arson case]], which will produce the following: arson case

Those fixes won't help with the notability and promotional writing aspects, but they do need to be fixed before the article goes to mainspace. Good luck! Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thank you for the feedback. I'll do that pronto! Gawitt (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once I can get into the draft and reorganize some of the references, I will. Thanks again! Gawitt (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Greg Isaacs (May 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

We need significant coverage in reliable sources. What you've given us is citations about the subject's clients where the attorney is not the focus. Where the subject has appeared in media doesn't matter, either. Please wait until the subject is long-dead so we can have better sourcing to make a claim for general notability. You've already been told this and yet you insist you don't have a conflict of interest. If we wanted an article about this subject in our encyclopedia, we'd've written it ourselves.

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:Greg Isaacs 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:Greg Isaacs, 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 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful pointers. Just trying to learn over here.

Interesting point: "If we wanted an article about this subject in our encyclopedia, we'd've written it ourselves." That is quite an illuminating editorial position to understand for this open-source platform.

I'll give the piece more revision. Thanks again! Gawitt (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm Pizzaplayer219. I noticed that you recently removed content from Draft:Greg Isaacs without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 14:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for the note. I took the article down because it needs some major surgery before it's ready to publish again. Rather than go over endless revisions, I decided to take the content down altogether. I'm new here and trying to do it right, so thanks for the feedback. Since I submitted and have been working on the article, I figured it was OK for me to take it down until another revision is ready. Gawitt (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Greg Isaacs

Hello, Gawitt. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Greg Isaacs, 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) 17:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]