User talk:GeelongManifesto

"Minor" updates

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your feedback and thank you for your contributions! For more help on getting started, please look at Help desk and the help pages.

Always good to have another Geelong person here. Just thought to drop you a quick note to suggest not tagging some of your edits as minor edits. There's a good guide here on what to tag as minor edits in future. Storm machine (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - will change in future GeelongManifesto (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert (Bob) Gartland (January 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by TheChunky 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 does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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.
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 06:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, GeelongManifesto! 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! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 06:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Gartland (May 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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:
All statements need to be sourced, starting with the date of birth. WP:External links should be removed or converted to inline citations.
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.
Greenman (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Robert Gartland

[edit]

Information icon Hello, GeelongManifesto. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Robert Gartland, 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) 13:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Robert Gartland has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Robert Gartland. Thanks! —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 19:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Gartland (August 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NeoGaze 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:
Subject is notable enough, but there are several issues regaring sourcing; statements that need citations, failed verification cases in which the reference doesn't support what is said, and a dead link that couldn't be recovered. Please fix these issues and the draft should be ready.
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.
NeoGaze (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]