User talk:DevilTrombone

hi

Editors shouldn't pick and choose what to mention from a book, we need to use sources meeting WP:RS discussing the content. Bravo for your hard work, but it's based on a misundertanding I had when I was a new user. See WP:VERIFY also. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing a books contents appears to be mentioned here: "Summary/Content — report on the content of the book and how it is organized. This can include any thesis and major illustrative examples. Do not try to re-organize the content, just summarize and report it." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books#Article_structure. I am trying to ascertain AC's "thesis and major illustrative examples." My initial comments are not intended to go into the main page in their current form. --DevilTrombone (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't use our articles as sources. What you are looking at is not an official guideline. Editor's can't determine a books thesis. But you do raise something that might need fixing. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to look at an official guideline if you can provide it. That would be great. DevilTrombone (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Summarising non-fiction books. I don't think you've read WP:RS yet. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of problems with RedState. One is that it is a blog, and the other is that there's no author to the blog. kirkrg isn't a name. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A great point. How does one find a list of blogs or non-blogs that are reliable? If someone posts to the NYT's blog (or similar) that is on-line only is that not acceptable or is that a blog too? As for names, I don't know what is or is not a valid name, e.g. Elon Musk has a child with a name that is uncommon. Does wikipedia have a guide for valid names? --DevilTrombone (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also this seems relevant " (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)" DevilTrombone (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're usually supposed to archive old talk page comments, not delete them... AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ah, I had forgotten. Good point. DevilTrombone (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather unfortunate that you chose not to fix any of the problems you created. AnonMoos (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DevilTrombone

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Dan arndt, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, The simple diet, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dan arndt}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dan arndt (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: updated page DevilTrombone (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, The simple diet, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DevilTrombone. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The simple diet, 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) 05:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 deleted. If 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]