User talk:Lettucecup

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

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

--> The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally.

Information on his wife is not relevant to notability in this draft.

See WP:Markup for how to mark up section headings.

Fix reference errors.

The subject is likely notable, but this draft has tone issues.

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:Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn 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:Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lettucecup! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 28)

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 seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you.

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:Lettucecup/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:Lettucecup/sandbox, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard J. Marks (July 12)

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Might be notable enough, but issues with WP:NPOV. Read through WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTRESUME. Clean up/remove any information that is unnecessary or unsuitable for an encyclopedia.

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:Richard J. Marks 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:Richard J. Marks, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Richard J. Marks has been accepted

Richard J. Marks, 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!

– Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 19:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn (July 18)

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

As stated in IRC, geni.com etc...are not remotely reliable, ever.

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:Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn 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:Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn (July 18)

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

Tone still needs a lot of work as does the sourcing.

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:Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn 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:Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn has been accepted

Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn, 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!

– Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn, Lettucecup!

Wikipedia editor Barkeep49 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Congrats on your hard work and getting the article accepted.

To reply, leave a comment on Barkeep49's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability, the purpose of citing sources

By and large, your recent edits to Richard J. Marks are making its problems worse. Possibly you are missing the point of citations. If you make a statement like "Lettucecup is the cousin of Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom", there is no need to cite three sources for the fact that Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom. It is necessary, however, to cite a source for the relationship between her and Lettucecup. The representative's home address fails to prove that Marc Lincoln Marks is Richard J. Marks' paternal uncle. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more detail.

Maintenance templates should only be removed by an editor who does not have a conflict of interest, when they understand the problem that the template refers to, and when that problem has been resolved. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information. If you removed the clean up templates by mistake, don't worry, they have been restored. I'll give you a couple days to step back and reflect on what the article needs (or to continue to hack and flail fruitlessly). Then I'll reassess the article and its references. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined about half the references, and removed about half of the ones I looked at. The most common problem was that they didn't support the text or didn't support the part of the text that needed support (like the Queen above). There were also several sources that were not reliable, some that were redundant (in a bad way), and some that supported statements that aren't relevant in an encyclopedia biography of Marks. Among the 30 sources I examined, not a single one helps demonstrate notability, mostly because they aren't significant coverage of Marks, but also because many of them are not independent. I'll wade through the rest of the sources as time permits, probably around Thursday. If you want to save everyone time and grief, I invite you to avail yourself of WP:THREE. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Worldbruce -- I'd like to warrant a good editorial resolution here for writing about a journalist (and notably, an environmental convener). It'll help me in writing articles in future too, as I am interested in journalists and their histories, as well as their contributions to society.

First, thanks for the advice and for your editing. (I'm certainly very willing to be a partner here, to improve it as best I can, and not leave it to others.)

Second, I am reticent -- right now -- to add content or context that was in prior drafts, that makes the piece interesting. Thus I went through and deleted unneeded references, at your request.

Hopeful that the existing references now clearly provide the minimum WP:THREE ... and they ought to: Newsweek, LinkTV, ChinaDaily, The Atlantic, Washington Life, Best of DC are referenced to articles about the subject's role in the energy-environment convenings. Other references to key public documents for convenings (DOE, SISC China, and Webby Awards 2000) remain in the list as they may be the only references that remain and have not yet disappeared).

Third, you rewrote the text for US Department of Energy. While the edit/cuts mirrors the existing reference (in which the subject is credited in a peer review report), it gives the absolute conclusion that the subject's only and primary communications role, in a full-time position (year-long) during the Recovery Act, was to organize materials for a 3-day peer review. That's misleading, and I think it's unfair to the subject. I have carefully looked at the report. From it, I added the nature of the role to the peer review, as is true, that the subject was a federal contractor, and established context re: the era (Recovery Act of 2009); and cited directly from the report that the formal peer review was "conducted by DOE's Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP).

Lastly ... and I feel this is important (it's where this person's career began as an accredited journalist): the subject was indeed a broadcast CNN journalist. In this process of verifying references, it became a major omission. As I noted earlier, is not referenced in an article, and CNN does not verify anyone not on-air (such as producers), given that it is broadcast cable television, not print. How can we do it well? To be fair to this article and subject, I'd like to replace it.

Thanks, and have a good week. I'll try to edit once more this evening. Lettucecup (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

I completed my review of the references, and found none that help prove notability, so I've nominated the article for deletion. Better to cut your losses now than to continue to sink effort into a topic that is never likely to become notable. The article demonstrates some grasp of what a reliable source is, but not what an independent or secondary one is, or what constitutes significant coverage, or how to evaluate notability.

One way to gain an understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines would be to study some of Wikipedia's best articles, such as Marjory Stoneman Douglas. Take particular note of the range of sources cited. A second way would be to edit more topics. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to get involved. A third way, more difficult, would be to make the maximum possible improvement to one existing article. If your interest is in biographies of journalists and environmentalists, find one about whom at least one book-length biography has been written, and whose Wikipedia article has been rated C quality or worse. The article about the founder of Earth Day, Gaylord Nelson, for example, is mediocre, but sources exist that could be used to improve it substantially.

Accuracy and completeness are desirable properties in articles, but verifiability is mandatory. The essay "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth" may help you understand why some things cannot be included in a Wikipedia article, even if that means omitting something you feel is important. What has been published in reliable sources about a subject may or may not be fair to the subject. Nevertheless, articles must fairly reflect everything that has been published, and may include no more. That's part of the reason I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia biography on my worst enemy. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Richard J. Marks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard J. Marks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard J. Marks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Worldbruce (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Phoenix I hope this will reach you, regarding the deletion of the page for Richard J. Marks, in which it was suggested by two editors that userfy would be recommended. Therefore, I read the notes again carefully, and through my reading of it, may have a solution. Marks is IS notable as a film Producer. He is listed clearly in the credits as a Producer, in at least three publicly released short films/TV about key renewable energy and/or China convenings with interesting contexts: 1. Producer: LinkTV https://archive.org/details/linktv_earth20081114 (Time Code 25:30) 2. Producer: The State of Renewable Energy Finance” -- https://player.vimeo.com/video/133473382 (Time Code 7:41) 3. Producer: "WIREC: Washington International Renewable Energy Conference" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxu1YDNI7k4 (Time Code: 8:00). I would like to propose moving the article back into user space, with Marks listed, more simply, as a Producer of environmentally-oriented films, using those links above. That would solve the problem of the lack of print articles about him at this point in time. It would give others a chance to benefit from his contributions. The opening may be rewritten: "Marks is the Producer of film narratives that provide environmental solutions and leadership voices, in the United States and China. Thanks so much. Lettucecup (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Lettucecup[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lettucecup. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Lettucecup/sandbox

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

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]