User:David10244
Recently edited as a couple of different IP addresses. Now I have an account! Woo-woo!
My most recent IP, before creating my account, started in June 2022. I had 500 edits, mostly to WP space (the help desks). The two edits in 2008 for that IP were not mine.
I had a previous IP, which I'll find so that I know its starting date. My IP address is/was fairly static. In fact, it's the same now (late January 2023) as it was in June 2022. Interesting.
Good explanations
[edit]In a help desk, ColinFine said:
- Writing an article begins with finding the sources - and most of them have to be independent sources, so interviews don't help. Sources don't have to be online; but if the reliable independent sources don't exist, then he doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and it's not worth spending any time on it.
Very well put.
More great stuff from ColinFine and others:
- Trying to create an article before you have spent time learning how Wikipedia works and what its requirements are is often frustrating and miserable. We delete hundreds of articles and drafts a day, many of them by people who have started before they are ready. And if you are connected with the subject (so you have a conflict of interest) it is even harder, as you will need to forget everything you know about the person - and, especially, forget your opinions about them - and write based only on what the independent sources that you have found say about the person. Please read your first article, as well as about notability.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
...
Where did you get that information from? Was if from a website? What website? Was it from a book? What book was it from? What page in that book can I find it? See, everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, which means that someone else can follow up and find the source of the information; where it comes from. Everything written in Wikipedia should have been written about first in reliable sources, and we cite our sources for every bit of information. The most convenient way for readers to connect all of your information to the specific source it comes from is through footnotes; see Help:Footnotes for how to add those to your article. Help:Referencing for beginners is also a really good guide.
...
(I liked this reply)
Hi @Buligio: most of the draft content is unreferenced, and many of the sources cited don't seem to be about Carranza. Which begs two questions - where is all this information coming from, and how do we know it's true? Perhaps you've misunderstood the way Wikipedia works: you don't just write what you know (or what you want) about a topic, and then find some sources that support the odd bit of your writing here and there. You read what reliable sources have said about a topic, summarise (in your own words) the salient points, and cite your sources as you go so the reader can verify that those sources really say such things. Which takes us back to my earlier point: if that isn't the process you followed (as suggested by the fact that you cannot find sources to cite), then where did all this information come from? As for the promotional, non-encyclopaedic language, this can be found throughout the draft, but I will pick out a few examples to give you an idea of the sort of expressions we don't want to see: "woman aviator, entrepreneur and activist who successfully defied a male dominated field" "suddenly found herself stranded in Buenos Aires and in fear of being caught in the ensuing dragnet" "Irma's attitude towards life: valor, ideals, determination, caring about others, hard work and a smile" Also, the many instances of peacock language such as "trailblazer", "historic", "very first" (just "first" will do), etc. All these can go into a magazine feature about her, or perhaps her obituary, but they do not belong in an encyclopaedia article. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Page
[edit]An encyclopedia article, not a social-media-type "page".
Misc
[edit]No one, whether paid or not, can guarantee that they can create an article that won't be deleted. You should not pay anyone to create an article (or to create and submit a draft) for you. (My words)
Focus on finding reliable, independent, secondary sources and summarizing what they say, without any reference to what the subject of the article would like it to say. 199.208.172.35
Wikipedia does not have any "company pages" or "company profiles". Instead, we have encyclopedia articles about business that meet the very strict standards described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Do not think of YouTube as a source. Think of it instead as a platform that hosts millions of videos, each one of which needs to have its reliability evaluated independently. (Cullen328)
Deleting images
[edit]If the image is hosted here on the English Wikipedia, the proper place is Wikipedia:Files for discussion. If it is hosted on Wikimedia Commons, you will need to discuss it there. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Simplified Ruleset
[edit]Color
[edit]26bdbd
33ffdb
Reliable
[edit]published in a Reliable source that is independent of the person.
backwards
[edit]You need to create the draft from what the sources say, rather than writing the draft and then hoping to find supporting material. There is an essay about this that you should read (link)
Ha
[edit]@Hoary "Upsurge", I like that! I may start using it, if I can figure out what it means. American, eh? Hmmmm.... David10244 (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Don't just be a user, @David10244. No point talking the talk if you don't also walk the walk. Upsurge your brand's discernibility; do it today. (Obvious first steps: (i) Lots of userboxes; (ii) Gimmicky signature.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)