User talk:Brokebutbrilliant

April 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to San Diego Padres did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Janan2025 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness, thank you. Will get to that.

BBB Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can i provide a summary post-publishing of an edit? Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Presearch (April 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples 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 web content). 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Presearch 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brokebutbrilliant! 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! BuySomeApples (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brokebutbrilliant, if you have an external connection with Presearch, you would need to disclose your Conflict of Interest. There was another draft on Presearch written in 2021 by User:Carrabre from the Presearch team. Jay 💬 08:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just put disclosed that parameter on my talk page, thank you. Through AfC is still the correct procedure, yes? I have additional publications citing, but 1) wanted to make sure AfC draft is desired and 2) if I should still make edits the edits including more notability references... and potentially going through Teahouse for more assistance; but if what I'm about to reference (although I should've started with these) isn't notable, then half of the pages that are listed on List of Search Engines don't have the correct guidelines for notability. -bbb Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes AfC is the correct procedure. The reason I mentioned Carrabre's deleted draft is to know if you would like to use it as reference, or merge your draft into that. I see that you tried to edit Carrabre's user page as well. Are you colleagues / know the user externally? Jay 💬 17:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User page was a mistake, was trying to edit mine.

No connection to previous iteration. I'll take a look, but the draft being written has been made with neutral intentions... not positive if the previous attempted draft would taint that. I'll contemplate looking. -bbb Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a merge is the correct procedure @Jay Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Presearch (April 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ritchie333 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 web content). 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:

The problem with the sources presented here is they are all either promotional material publicising Presearch, or are references directly from Presearch itself. There doesn't seem to be any independent source coverage (eg: from major worldwide outlets) that talk about Presearch in a neutral, but detailed manner. Without these references, it's impossible to write an encyclopedic topic on this.

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:Presearch 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.

Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Brokebutbrilliant! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Primary Sources, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Presearch has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Presearch. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I respond here, @Robert McClenon? I'm not sure which action is needed at the moment for Presearch:Draft. Presearch (search engine) is probably what the title should be... was unclear by your comment if I should edit anything now, or re-submit & create Presearch (search engine), or take no action. -bbb Brokebutbrilliant (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Presearch (search engine) has been accepted

Presearch (search engine), 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

GoldRomean (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]