User talk:Mannikir

Concern regarding Draft:Old Down Wood (Ropley)[edit]

Hello, Mannikir. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Old Down Wood (Ropley), 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) 15:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Old Down Wood (January 12)[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 TheChunky was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:Old Down Wood 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.

❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 13:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mannikir! 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 (✍️) 13:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've gone over your response and done a second draft, I would appreciate if you could have a second look.

Regards.

Mannikir Mannikir (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Old Down Wood (April 23)[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 DoubleGrazing 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 draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

I honestly don't think this is notable; the sources cited certainly don't bear that out. (The offline sources are not correctly cited, making them difficult or impossible to verify.) There is also quite a lot of unreferenced content, conjecture, and what looks like original research, which needs to be either properly supported or else removed.

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:Old Down Wood 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. I disagree that this woodland is not notable. In the local history of Ropley and Four Marks this woodland plays a significant role and many locals are very familiar with it and visit it daily for walks and foraging. From personal experience I have had many questions asked about this as no other information can be found of this woodland and surrounding area online.

The sources I have used are far more extensive than many other already-existing local history pages for example the entire village of Wield which has a total of 3 sources. Some of the sources may not be orthodox, but they will be familiar to most, for example the National Grid References that I use for highlighting the locations of certain features. Unfortunately sources from the Hampshire Environmental Records are not active as the website has been undergoing maintenance since March. This is completely out of my control but the website will be updated soon. I have also gone through the offline sources and recited them.

I understand I haven't used completely concrete language; the occasional use of 'potentially' and 'most likely' but this is common language in local history works. As one can not be 100% sure of all information on a topic, however, this doesn't mean it should be exluded completely, especially when information is already lacking. Rather, it should be included with clarification that it is not undeniable fact but a theory that the reader can make their mind up about.

I would appreciate reconsideration and I hope you can see the significance of this article to the local area.

Kind Regards,

Mannikir Mannikir (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brockwood Park[edit]

The article Brockwood Park has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Un-notable area

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Bramdean, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]