Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

• 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

j⚛e decker^talk 02:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! TimHitchings, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! j⚛e deckertalk 02:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TimHitchings. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.
Message added 14:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 14:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to help you with the reference list and how to write the source. It's not much but I think it will help you. DtwipzBTalk 14:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a WP:TBACK on my userpage, in case you want to reply this message DtwipzBTalk 15:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Thank you for introducing yourselves to TeahouseBhootrina (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TimHitchings. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LouiseS1979 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).[reply]

Hi, Tim. I promised at the Teahouse to give you a little more specific advice. Here goes.

• It's usually more appropriate to refer to a subject by their last name. This in itself helps change the tone of an article, but it's necessary to keep the article in tune with the rest of Wikipedia.

• I think some of the references will be superfluous. What the guy is notable for is the charity in his name rather than the specifics of his baseball playing career. So the article needs to be refocused around the details of that campaign and its coverage in national media. I will keep some sources in, but they currently dominate the article a little much. A lot of the Trentonian references are routine match reports. One or two help establish him as a player; too many overwhelm the reason he's notable. Less is more: once you have adequate citations in an article, the preference is not to saturate the article with every mention. (Someone else took out a lot of refs, so let's go with that.)

• You will need to give factual detail about his death and why it happened. Avoid using obituary wording such as 'died at his home...' - state the facts drily and, well, coldly. This needs to be a neutrally-worded encyclopaedic article, so in general try not to use journalistic language.

I'll go on with the drafting and save this for now. LouiseS1979 (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional remarks:

• Never lift language or quotations directly from a source without marking them as such. This is copyright violation and cannot be held on Wikipedia. Always write in your own words. I changed the wording of the biographical detail as it was word-for-word the same as the obituary text. You'll need to find a reference for when he was the newspapers' Player of the Year.

• Articles over a certain length should be sub-divided into sections, with a lead summarising the contents of the article. I've proposed a framework and drafted a lead for you.

• Citations immediately follow punctuation - there is no space between the period and the ref tag.

• This is quite a long task for me and it's quite late at night here (the UK). I'll give it another go and see what I can do, but you need to integrate some of the sources in the long list after the citations into the article. Give priority to national media over local papers as well - the more national media refers to Bachner, the more notable he is and the more you can demonstrate that notability. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional remarks:

• Your own blog is not a reliable source - it's a self-published source. We need sources which are independent of the subject and also have some form of editorial oversight. The fact it references is sourced anyway - so the blog reference isn't needed.

• Basically, what I've mainly been doing is revising news citations to properly quote the title of the article, the newspaper, the date of publication and the writer. This is a painstaking task but it helps me also check your sources, which seem OK to me. I'm sure someone else can tell both of us if they're not relevant or don't establish notability, but I'm basically helping show you what an article should look like so it doesn't fail on aesthetic grounds.

Basically, it's now quite late here. I have a day off on Thursday for New Year, so if you still need help, let me know, and I'll come back and finish the job I started. I hope you get the gist of what the article needs from these notes - it's a hard art to master, and I don't claim to be an expert, but this is helping me draft articles and copy-edit too, so I'm honoured to be of some help and to work on this with you. I hope I haven't trodden on any toes here by stating some things a bit forcefully, but there are some non-negotiable issues here.

Let me know how you get on. LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything that LouiseS1979 has said. Also, this may sound cold, but I think that the 'Baseball career' section needs to be shortened so as to refocus away from David Bachner's life, which was non-notable for Wikipedia's purposes, and more towards his death and legacy, which precipitated the creation of memorial funds and David becoming an eponym for a Baseball field and being the basis of his notability. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 23:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the article is nearly ready to be accepted by my standards. However, there is still a bit more work to be done on the section 'Renaming of baseball field'. That section needs to be reduced into one coherent paragraph rather than the current seven paragraphs. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 01:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Jordan Bachner, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

Arfæst! 15:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

TimHitchings,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year 2015)) to user talk pages.

Thanks for the barnstar. Congratulations on having the article accepted - I'll keep an eye on it for you. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Great Question Badge
	Awarded to those who have asked a great question on the Teahouse Question Forum. There are no stupid questions, but some are excellent! Good questions are those that reflect serious curiosity about editing and help others learn. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Happy New Year! Arfæst! 16:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away from Wikipedia (more or less), distracted by off-wiki events. I seem to recall seeing that the copyvios had been resolved, and if the draft is still pending, I hope that another reviewer addresses it promptly. Again, my apologies for the delay in response. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TimHitchings. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).[reply]

Hi TimHitchings! You created a thread called New Page about an author - Are they notable enough for me to bother? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2019 (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 AngusWOOF 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 (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:

Needs more external news sources not connected to the companies or retailers or journals.

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:John Holl 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:John Holl, 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.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John Holl (writer). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Draft:John Holl (writer), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://johnholl.com/bio, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Draft talk:John Holl (writer) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Draft:John Holl (writer), in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Draft talk:John Holl (writer). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Draft talk:John Holl (writer) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Draft talk:John Holl (writer) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Diannaa thanks for your feedback.  I've created these pages as instructed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:John_Holl_(writer)/Temp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:John_Holl_(writer) Can you please tell me what else I need to do to correct my article and have the copyright violation removed? Thanks for your patience. TimHitchings (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2021 (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 Scope creep 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:

There is a lot and lots of profile page. Find WP:THREE refs which are WP:SECONDARY and add them in as the first three. Three decent independent book reviews would help for WP:NAUTHOR. Give me a shout when your finished.

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:John Holl (writer) 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:John Holl (writer), 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.

scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 4 June 2021 (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 Eternal Shadow 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 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:

Many of the primary sources do little to indicate notability. Please add WP:SECONDARY sources.

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:John Holl (writer) 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:John Holl (writer), 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.

Eternal Shadow Talk 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TimHitchings. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John Holl (writer), 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) 17:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]