User talk:Schedukiam

Hello, may I ask why my amendment regarding Seattle Light Rail reverted? It is obvious that there are underground sections...Schedukiam (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of Anglo-Catholic churches. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sundayclose

May I ask you to be more sensitive with your language? The vandalism remark is way exaggerated and being pointed to the sandbox feels just awkward to me, given the fact that I have obviously done quite a lots of edits both on the German and the English version of this very Encyclopedia. I appreciate a strict approach to the founding priciples of this venture, but showing off an Ego does not serve the cause at all.

With all best wishes, Schedukiam Schedukiam (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "language" above is a standard template endorsed by Wikipedia for edits that introduce incorrect information, as your edit. Please do not refer to my "ego". Comment on content, not contributors. Read WP:NPA. Sundayclose (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Great Performances episodes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sundayclose

No offense, but I think you are overperforming here. The entire list of episodes is questionable in terms of sources, and the entry "Dance Conmpany" without specification is obviously a mistake. The addition I made was based on a database extract I was given at the Moving Image Reading Room at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. and on a viewing of an episode at this very Reading Room. I guess the Wikipedia guidelines do not name such database excerpts or the viewing of the actual episode as a viable source, even if it is archived at a library whose credibility should be beyond any doubt. I am interested in your opinion on how to proceed with this. All best, Schedukiam Schedukiam (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The entire list of episodes is questionable in terms of sources": Other crap exists is not an acceptable reason to add more bad edits (in this case, unsourced edits). Whatever the edit was based on, you did not cite it as a source. Read WP:RS for details about reliable sources. Read WP:CITE for details about citing sources. Sundayclose (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Anglo-Catholic churches

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Anglo-Catholic churches, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of Anglo-Catholic churches

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Anglo-Catholic churches, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Le Vita (November 10)

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

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.

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 music-related topics). 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:

Calendars are not reliable, secondary sources and should not constitute half of the citations. Articles are expected to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, and be written in a neutral point of view by not declaring that the subject is "talented", which is opinion.

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:David Le Vita 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.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Schedukiam! 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! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Marcus Ritchie (June 11)

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

He does not seem notable; I can't even find a single web source mentioning him. You should read the Wikipedia guideline WP:GNG if you haven't yet.

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:Joseph Marcus Ritchie 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.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Nuggeteer

Thx for reaching out. Please reconsider this, Joseph Marcus Ritchie often shortened his first name to "J". So if you google "J Marcus Ritchie", you will find more entries than with "Joseph Marcus Ritchie", btw it is not true that one cannot find a single entry with the full name.

I am also rather surprised that a composer who is included in the Hymnal 1982 of the Episcopal Church, who is widely present in Newspaper articles and for whom obituaries in major church music journals have been published (all quoted in the draft), is not being considered as notable. With all due respect, I question that this submission has been reviewed by a knowledgeable person in the field of music/music history/church music. Schedukiam (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Marcus Ritchie (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 SafariScribe 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:

The sources should bear a title.

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:Joseph Marcus Ritchie 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Le Vita (September 2)

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

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph Marcus Ritchie has been accepted

Joseph Marcus Ritchie, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

Tavantius (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Schedukiam. Thank you for your work on Joseph Marcus Ritchie. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]