An editors evaluation of a previous review request stated this article reads like an advertisement. As the writer I must disagree with this assessment, it couldn't be more wrong. I have never written anything in an advertising style and personally would never write any advertisement for any product or article, I do not even know HOW to write an advertisement.
[this is edited but is copied] Search engines are used to find sources, each engine has quirks, advantages, and disadvantages, and may not return the results that the editor needs. It typically takes experience and practice to recognize when a search has not been effective; even if an editor finds useful sources, they may have missed other sources that would have been more useful or they may generate pages and pages of less-useful material.[end quote]
The point is -- after three or four validation trips on the web, I'm simply going to use any good information provided by the internet/web around that point. It requires a ton of reading, and more to cross-check and try to validate; when validation can even be done. Then one gets tired. I'm doing this free and have many hours in, the main beneficiary of the work is WIKIPEDIA itself, the articles utility for three-dimensional meat-space readers is realized only after the article is provided to WP, and thus the institute gets the credit.
This is all fine and is perfectly pre-agreed to, I don't come here seeking credit and regarding this article I just want to see it to completion, ie: published, sort of. At this juncture I have done all I can for it, without help this article dies on it's ragged, thorny vine. I bid you adieu.
Missbellanash (
talk)
20:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I keep receiving notifications that link from here - /info/en/?search=User:J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano/Decode I do not know what the editor expects of me with these "CODED" remarks, none of them address anything I have done or want to do. If they can't communicate in a normal fashion, using English, sans a million links to other sources this appears to be a permanent block. Missbellanash ( talk) 05:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Submission declined on 27 August 2021 by
Bonadea (
talk). This submission appears to
read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a
neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of
independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's
verifiability policy and the
notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. 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.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
| ![]() |
Submission declined on 5 August 2021 by
GoingBatty (
talk). 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 music-related topics). 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. Declined by
GoingBatty 2 years ago. | ![]() |
Hey, I hope the tagging works, I have replied to most of this on a different page. @GoingBatty @ColinFine @Hoary @Bonadea @Worldbruce
Thank all of you for the review and suggestions, I appreciate the input. I'm not prepared to do much more work on this, at least this soon. I will return to it and try to incorporate these suggestions. Thank you again! Missbellanash ( talk) 01:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
An editors evaluation of a previous review request stated this article reads like an advertisement. As the writer I must disagree with this assessment, it couldn't be more wrong. I have never written anything in an advertising style and personally would never write any advertisement for any product or article, I do not even know HOW to write an advertisement.
[this is edited but is copied] Search engines are used to find sources, each engine has quirks, advantages, and disadvantages, and may not return the results that the editor needs. It typically takes experience and practice to recognize when a search has not been effective; even if an editor finds useful sources, they may have missed other sources that would have been more useful or they may generate pages and pages of less-useful material.[end quote]
The point is -- after three or four validation trips on the web, I'm simply going to use any good information provided by the internet/web around that point. It requires a ton of reading, and more to cross-check and try to validate; when validation can even be done. Then one gets tired. I'm doing this free and have many hours in, the main beneficiary of the work is WIKIPEDIA itself, the articles utility for three-dimensional meat-space readers is realized only after the article is provided to WP, and thus the institute gets the credit.
This is all fine and is perfectly pre-agreed to, I don't come here seeking credit and regarding this article I just want to see it to completion, ie: published, sort of. At this juncture I have done all I can for it, without help this article dies on it's ragged, thorny vine. I bid you adieu.
Missbellanash (
talk)
20:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I keep receiving notifications that link from here - /info/en/?search=User:J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano/Decode I do not know what the editor expects of me with these "CODED" remarks, none of them address anything I have done or want to do. If they can't communicate in a normal fashion, using English, sans a million links to other sources this appears to be a permanent block. Missbellanash ( talk) 05:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Submission declined on 27 August 2021 by
Bonadea (
talk). This submission appears to
read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a
neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of
independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's
verifiability policy and the
notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. 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.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
| ![]() |
Submission declined on 5 August 2021 by
GoingBatty (
talk). 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 music-related topics). 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. Declined by
GoingBatty 2 years ago. | ![]() |
Hey, I hope the tagging works, I have replied to most of this on a different page. @GoingBatty @ColinFine @Hoary @Bonadea @Worldbruce
Thank all of you for the review and suggestions, I appreciate the input. I'm not prepared to do much more work on this, at least this soon. I will return to it and try to incorporate these suggestions. Thank you again! Missbellanash ( talk) 01:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|