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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edwin Foresman Schoch 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:Edwin Foresman Schoch, 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 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.

DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CesareBrizio! 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! DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! I've looked over your request and left a comment. Please check the comment and respond at your request on the main Files for upload page (not here). Your request will stay there for seven days and then it will be archived. Regards,- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! I've looked over your request and left a comment. Please check the comment and respond at your request on the main Files for upload page (not here). Your request will stay there for seven days and then it will be archived. Regards,- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! I've looked over your request and left a comment. Please check the comment and respond at your request on the main Files for upload page (not here). Your request will stay there for seven days and then it will be archived. Regards,- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC) @User:Rich_Smith Thank you, I understand! All the best, Cesare CesareBrizio (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2020 (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 DGG was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at McDonnell XF-85 Goblin. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The references are primarily about the airplanes, and this one in particular.

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:Edwin Foresman Schoch 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:Edwin Foresman Schoch, 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 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.

DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I've had some drafts rejected for lack of notability as well and feel your pain. Looking at your draft, here are some suggestions:

• Create a userpage for yourself to help with communications
• Shorten your intro paragraph to just why he is famous
• Move that picture of him in the jet cockpit to his userbox portrait photo
• Remove the Navy flag in the userbox and replace with US Navy
• List his ribbons in the userbox and get rid of the ribbon pics at the bottom. This is in an effort to clean up the page and make it more orderly.
• You can put 4 children under the "children" caption in the userbox
• Create a "Death and Honors" section. Move his death to that section and any honors he received to that section.
• Your reviewer noted most of the citations are about the plane and not the pilot. You first citation looks like a great source, but what is it? A book? I like to use the drop down menu citation creator for my sources. If it is a book it will ask for the ISBN number, etc. If it is a website, it will ask you for the url, etc.
• I noticed some of your sentences have 3-5 citations next to it. Maybe drop that down to one citation, so your reflist won't be overloaded with citations the reviewer feels aren't pertinent. Five or six good sources are better than 30 bad.
• Remember, Schoch is famous for his test piloting, not his WWII service. Too much space is given to his WWII medals and ribbons in this draft. (the bomb he dropped is mentioned three separate times)
• Keep to an encyclopedic theme, reviewers frown when it strays into an essay themed article.
• Here's some other similar test-pilot articles I've been working on for your review Jack Woolams, Robert Stanley, and Carl Cover. Sometimes it helps to refer to another article. For instance, I have been editing Ernest K. Gann's article and using John Grisham's as a template because his was so well done and of their similar novel and film careers.

Good luck and keep pess'n on. Wiki needs people like you. Feel free to to reach out again. KlausVonVilver (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KlausVonVilver: Thanks for your insightful comments and suggestions. I'll try to intervene on the draft as you proposed. I greatly appreciated your help.CesareBrizio (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pamphagus sardeus, 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.

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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main Files for upload page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards,— Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main Files for upload page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards,— Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main Files for upload page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards,— Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that writing multiple users at once is usually discouraged per WP:TALKFORK. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 I thank you very much, I apologize for this violation, caused by my inexperience, and I promise that in the future I shan't repeat the same mistake.

Please kindly clarify whether I must take remedial action. Thank you again CesareBrizio (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fine, you've only written five users and are otherwise constructively contributing. In general, a first warning does not bear any consequences. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I'm much relieved! My over-activity is due to the fact that in a couple of weeks a new honor will be bestowed upon the test pilot covered in my draft, and it would be great if the Wikipedia article emerges just in time! You all are very helpful and I keep my fingers crossed. Have an happy new year! CesareBrizio (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment

In your requests, you said that you were trying to locate a reviewer that "shares your POV" -- this is in direct opposition to WP's basic principle of WP:NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ DGG Again thank you for your continuing effort to educate me. Please consider that I am facing two challenges:

• my far from perfect command of the English language, about which you were much forgiving. In that respect, the locution "point of view" - that I used recklessly - does not refer necessarily to some unusual, outlandish, or exceptional point of view of mine (such as a political opinion), about which I am trying to build consensus. Definitely, I'm not trying to convince someone else of an unacceptable prejudice of mine. Please be patient and read more under;
• my inexperience, as a newbie wikipedian.

I hope that you will be available to help me further and clarify:

• you suggested to merge my article in the article about the McDonnell XF-85 page. Was that suggestion an unappealable verdict, an ultimatum?
  • If affirmative, I'll give up the «Article for Creation» process and take the odds of a direct publication - but please refer me to the set of Wikipedia rules that impose the acceptance of the first suggestion received;
  • If negative, please explain me which is the legit way to obtain another review of my draft, without infringing upon existing rules and without questioning your competence (which I don't intend to question).

Lastly, I would like to clarify the main reason for my stubbornness and for the attempt to draw the attention of other expert wikipedians, including @Balon Greyjoy, Hektor, and Rillian:, to my draft. I read and re-read the criteria for notability, helping myself with a dictionary, and - to the best of my knowledge - I see that Edwin Foresman Schoch, with the several hundreds of citations on Google, and with tens of books, journals, magazines citing his name, deserves coverage on Wikipedia. True, as you correctly observed! You were right asserting that his fame is mostly related with the XF-85, a plane whose strange shape and unusual history made it a favorite of aviation historians. But there's much more than that: suffice to say his key role in the development of the first jet fighter of the U.S. Navy, the Phantom; or his decisive contribution to the development of the Banshee (his death helped McDonnell to focus on the metal fatigue problems, subsequently solved). Furthermore, he was a war hero, a feat deserving the Cross for Conspicuous Service being currently (Jan 2021) awarded to Edwin Schoch by the State of New York.

What I wrongly described as a "point of view" is in fact a set of objective data, substantiating the notability of Edwin Foresman Schoch and the adequacy of my draft. It's those data - not my personal opinion - that deserve being re-evaluated.

True, "there is other stuff" is not considered a valid demonstration. Yet, it's very obvious that some test pilots have their article on wikipedia, and that those articles are much shorter and less documented than mine. I cited some when chatting with the "Article for creation" help desk, and I was suggested to re-submit the draft.

Again thank you for your patience, @ DGG, and my best wishes for an happy 2021!

CesareBrizio (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nothing I do is final. I'm an administrator, not a dictator. An administrator in WP is suppposed to do what the community would want them to do, in accordance with the various guidelines; I have no power do do whatever I should happen to feel like. All adminstrative actions can be replied to or protested, and all can be appealed. There are multiple possibilities/
2. usually I act as an ordinary editor, not an administrator. . The rules for dealing with edits is WP:BRD. I or any editor can make whatever edits I think helpful, and anyone else can revert them--the next step is to discuss the matter. The step after that is to ask someone else to look at it --seeWP:Dispute resolution.
3. Any editor can put tags or suggestions on an article or draft. Tags indicating severe problems should not be removed without discussion or fixing the problem--such as tags indicating conflict of interest or absence of sources .
4. Some editorial actions should not be reverted without prior discussion, including those covered by provisions at WP:BLP, or removing speedy deletion tags from an article you wrote yourself.
5. Reviewing AfCs is a special case. Any authorized AfC reviewer can accept an article -- but anyone can then list it for deletion at WP: AfD, and the community decides. Or they can decline an article, which means that it can be submitted again if they think improvements are made. Often the ame reviewer does the second review, but if a tird is needed, someone else should do it. . A reviewer can also reject , rather than just decline, an article if it is clearly totally unsuitable, and generally only an administrator can reverse that. If a draft is resubmitted unimproved too many times, there's a process WP:MFD for discussing whether to remove it. And there 's an appeal process after that, and other possibilities
   1. A reviewer who declines an article sometimes just applies the boilerplate message if ittey tink tey contributor will see een from that message what is wrong, , but generally for a promising draft that can be improved, reviewers if they have the time try to make specific suggestions for improvement. Nobody has to follow such suggestions, but it is much more likely that the draft will be accepted if they are followed. There is no point in having a draft accepted at AfC if it will immediately be sent by someone else to a deletion discussion and be deleted. .
   2. A reviewer is supposed to review at AfC based on their informed opinion whether or not the article would be kept at a discussion at WP:Articles for Deletion , not their own view of what they would prefer to have done. . Reviewers are supposed to have experience with AFD discussions, but they're not always right, and sometimes the consensus at WP:AFD will be erratic. I in particular have 14 years of experience at AfD discussions, and I try always to give a response based on a my best understanding of what the community will do, based on the way the community usually interprets the often ambiguous guidelines. In giving this advice I try to be very conservative, and suggest what I think will be the safest course. Since I have more experience than most reviewers, I try to handle the borderline articles or those nobody else wants to touch, and about 10 or 20% of the time the community will decide differently.
6. Merging an article can not be forced without a discussion. The various situations can get complicated, and they're given at WP:MERGE. As with editing, if I place a merge tag, and someone removes it, I can't put it back witout a discussion. There is a formal proceedure if they are contested, but most are decided by informal discussion.
7. As an administrator, I can do some other things also. If an article or draft is obviously bad, like an advertisement, I can delete it without necessarily having a discussion. Usually I would just place the deletion tag, and let another admin decide, but if it's really really bad in various ways, I sometimes just do it myself, Admins are supposed to delete as community representatives, doing in clear cases what the community will do. If someone disagrees, the first step is usually to discuss it with the administrator. There are multiple ways of proceeding after that.
8. As an admin, I can also undelete articles another admn as deleted. Normally I check with them first.

Now, about this particular article.

1. Your reason for wanting it rapidly processed is irrelevant to WP, and everyone you asked has said so.
2. Normally it is considered wrong to ask for a specific reviewer.
3. We decide notability based on complicated and ambiguous rules at WP:GNG, and the various project guidelines. We have a guideline, a guideline that I personally disagree with, of basing this on the number and quality of sources, not on our views of the accomplishments. Even so, accomplishments can often be a secondary factor.
4. Everyone thinks their own POV is objectively the facts.
5. I checked a few dozens of articles on test pilots; most had more accomplishments, or were in the space program. A few didn't and should be either ither be fixed or deleted. I'm not going to do it personally--I have quite a few higher priorities.

What you do next is up to you.

1. You can improve it as best you can and resubmit it. Some else will judge. If they accept it, I then have the choice of whether to go the AFD. I do not know whether I shall chose to, as I do not have enough time to follow up everyting I think sould be deleted. But even if I decide not to , someone else might. I do not think it will be get a keep decision at AfD, but it might. I think it's about a 50% chance. Most reviewers do not accept from AfC unless they think the likelihood of passing would be at least 66%, or even 75%. 2.You might decide to add some of thee material into the article on the most famous of the planes. It's not technically a merge at this point, , just normal editing. It doesn't requirre anyone to accept anyting. You just do it. If someone thinks you inserted to much, they can remove it and then there can be a discussion. 3. But either way, there's no point in arguing with me about the merits now, because I am going to let somone else review it. There are hundreds of reviewers.

Some general advice.

1. WP has many hundreds of guidelines, and there is considerable variation on whether they are actually followed. They are interpreted in different ways, and the degree of consensus varies. This is not a place with firm rules. The actual guidelines are what people actually do, and that can only be learned by experience. I am trying to share some with you. If I didn't think you could become a productive editor, I wouldn't do it at this great length.
2. It usually does not help to push any one issue too far, and certainly not any one article-- even when you are quite certain you are in the right. It is usually more productive to wait a while, and try again. Sometimes when I lose a discussion, I might try again in 6 months if it matters enough-- or sometimes wait for many years because consensus can change.
3. Wp is a place controlled by the rough consensus of thos who happen to be interested in an issue . This is not a method of working that is necessarily consistent, or even fair. But it's very different from almost all other organizations. Most are hieratic, some are legalistic, some go by prestige. We do none of these. Nobody here has final authority on anything, our basic rule is WP:IAR ignore all rules if it will help the encyclopedia, and nobody has prestige enough to get their way on anything, except sometimes to a very limited extent in particular narrow area. That we do things this way is deliberate--we know it has disadvantages, but s most of us feel that for what we're doing in building an encyclopedia it has great benefits, or we wouldn't be here. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ DGG - Your generosity in providing all the explanations I needed is really outstanding and I feel in debt with you. The process is very complex, and now thanks to your explanations I understood better the factors of that complexity. Just in case that you have time for one very last question: while I wait to see whether my draft is accepted, I can publish anytime the Italian version of the draft in the Italian wikipedia. In that case, my English draft could be considered the translation of the corresponding Italian article and vice versa. Would it be a problem if I publish the same content in Italian language on the Italian Wikipedia, while my English draft is pending approval on the English Wikipedia? Again thank you and all the best. CesareBrizio (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide here what you can do on other language WPs, and I have very little experience with itWP. In general, this can be tricky because each WP has its own style, especially with references. But if you are copying material from one to the other, you need to say so. If you're going back and forth, connect it both ways. What I'd advise instead, is you start a draft on someone else, to show you've learned how to do it DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ DGG - Thank you very much for your answer. Unfortunately, Ed Schoch is the only person about which I have something to say. But in the last few days I succesfully published on WPen and WPit a few short articles about insects from the Mediterranean Basin, the first was accepted via AfC process, the others were self-published and successfully reviewed. I'll strive to find some other celebrity about which I can write an article and, as soon as I have enough material, I'll follow your very welcome suggestion.CesareBrizio (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

CesareBrizio,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

@ 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 Many thanks, all the same to you and your family! CesareBrizio (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting his article approved! As stated elsewhere, the AfC process is a long and arduous one, but it is there for a reason, especially for new editors who are ardent about a topic. I myself am an AfC editor but got diverted by 2020 down other paths, obviously. Please follow DGG's insight above should you devise another idea for an article. We're all here to help each other, in our goal to improve Wikipedia! Wyliepedia @ 00:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wylie - Thank you very much. Yes, I grasped the process and found helpful and collaborative Wikipedians like you! All the best.CesareBrizio (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on getting the Edwin Foresman Schoch page published. You worked hard on it and it shows. KlausVonVilver (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KlausVonVilver - Thank you very much. I was greatly helped by Ed Schoch's son, Ray! If you like the Goblin saga, perhaps you will find interesting information here: "The Goblinarium" - my apologies for the archaic looks of the web page! :-) CesareBrizio (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]