Cox Hicks House (1806), 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MollyParkerLind (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MollyParkerLind. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Cox Hicks House, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a connection to this building as its owner and am funding its restoration entirely. I am not profiting from it, nor is it a museum or a commercial endeavor. My goal is to improve the building and raise awareness of its historical significance. I would appreciate input from independent editors on how to include relevant, verifiable details about the restoration in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. MollyParkerLind (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Molly - I saw your email. I understand that you care deeply about this house, but please understand that you should not be the person to write a Wikipedia article about it. As the owner of the building, you are considered to have a conflict of interest, even if you are not using the building for commercial purposes.

What you wrote is preserved in the article history and is not gone forever. However, it had several substantial issues:

• Most significantly, it is not clear whether the house meets the notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Of the sources you added, only the 1988 report meets that criterion, and I cannot find any other such coverage. That is fairly typical for contributing properties in historic districts - while the district itself is notable, many of the individual properties are not.
• The majority of the article was not even about the house itself, but about the district. That's closely related to the lack of significant coverage.
• The writing style is non-neutral; phrases such as Its present picturesque appearance is enhanced by its unique setting atop this historic wall are not the impartial tone required on Wikipedia. That impartial tone is often difficult for new editors to get the hang of, as it is very different from most writing outside Wikipedia. For an example of what a high-quality article about a house with impartial tone, take a look at the Fallingwater article.

Even if the house does meet the notability criteria, the second and third points mean that your contributions would need to be substantially rewritten to be suitable as an article.

Since your primary interest is in sharing the history of the house, you may find LocalWiki more to your liking. If you wish to edit Wikipedia, you should focus on topics that you do not have a conflict of interest in. You could improve articles about other historic houses in Cambridge, for example, or about the Harvard Square Historic District as a whole. You could also take photos of the house and add them to Commons; that does not violate the conflict of interest guidelines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pi,

I just rewrote it, following the guidelines you sent above.

Can you take a look? MollyParkerLind (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I believe you should not be editing this article at all given your conflict of interest. Please see the discussion I have started here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2025 (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 AlphaBetaGamma 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 reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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:The Cox Hicks House 1806 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MollyParkerLind! 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! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:46, 17 March 2025 (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 Flat Out was:

One source for each paragraph, especially when each paragraph makes multiple claims, is not enough to establish notability

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:Cox Hicks House 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Flat Out (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]