Jump to content

User talk:Helper2022

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Helper2022, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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 after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Helper2022! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:
That a thing is patently useful does not mean it is notable. Your job is to find suitabel references for it. Wikipedia is not a directory of books that have been published
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 after they have been resolved.
🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gusfriend 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. 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:
Only references are item itself.
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.
Gusfriend (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Archbold Magistrates' Courts Criminal Practice. Thanks! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:
Simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet 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 after they have been resolved.
Onel5969 TT me 13:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, Helper2022. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Archbold Magistrates' Courts Criminal Practice, 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) 14:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne 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:
See WP:NLIST. We'd need sourcing that discusses this list as a whole.
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.
qcne (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Smith, Hogan and Ormerod's Criminal Law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Gibson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Ashworth's Principles of Criminal Law. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just moved it back because it obviously satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The pair of you need to stop this right now. Don't create articles without adequate sources and don't draftify articles without doing an adequate search for sources. James500 (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About your message

[edit]

Hello. I have read the message you put on my talk page. I think the solution is probably to put a paragraph at the top of the article that says something like "It has been repeatedly said that the pre-eminent practitioner texts are one or more of Archbold, Blackstone and Stone (and formerly Russell); and the courts themselves keep copies of Archbold/Blackstone; and the leading academic/student texts are [whatever they are]." In the case of the practitioner works, I can cite that quite easily with the list of sources I have been compiling in the articles such as [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. In the case of academic or student books, I really don't know what the pre-eminent books are, so a search for sources will have to be made, though I do suspect your right about Smith and Hogan. I should emphasise that any statement about pre-eminence etc must be cited to independent sources, and we need to determine how widely accepted the views in those sources are. Best regards. James500 (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]