User talk:Doctorbunsen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Doctorbunsen! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brian Graff (October 29)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 when they have been resolved. Rankersbo (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Doctorbunsen, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Rankersbo (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Brian Graff concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Brian Graff, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Brian Graff[edit]

Hello, Doctorbunsen. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Brian Graff".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Brian Graff}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 20:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dave Meslin (November 8)[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 SwisterTwister was:
This still needs any more available sources about him overall. Cheers,
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 when they have been resolved.
SwisterTwister talk 09:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dave Meslin (December 8)[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 LaMona was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.
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 when they have been resolved.
LaMona (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dave Meslin (December 8)[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 Wikiisawesome was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.
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 when they have been resolved.
/wia /tlk 05:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local notability[edit]

Actually, once an AFD discussion has been closed you're not supposed to edit it to keep the discussion going anymore. But I just wanted to offer an answer to your question anyway, as a gesture of good faith.

The most important thing you need to understand is that Wikipedia's policies around biographies of living people are actually designed in large part to protect the article subject from harm — because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, anybody in the entire world could edit the article at any time to call him a douchebag who once cut them off in traffic, or to add trashy and unverifiable gossip about his personal life or POV criticism of his politics. Or they could replace the entire thing with an article about somebody else who merely happens to have the same name, or with content about a completely unrelated topic like the recipe for paella or their own résumés, or with total nonsense like "That new Adele song really f$&%ing sucks!" or "ZOMG I like cows".

Those kinds of things actually do happen on here, a lot more often than you may realize. I didn't make a single one of them up — every single one of them is something that really has happened to at least one article on Wikipedia just within the past month alone. Not everybody who edits Wikipedia follows the rules, or makes constructive or responsible or legitimate edits; people make inappropriate or nonsense edits all the time. Our "quality control" model, in which we rely on the oversight of other editors to control for that kind of garbage, works extremely well for high-visibility topics like Barack Obama or Justin Trudeau, because there are enough people reading and watching those articles that vandalism will get reverted within a few minutes at most. But the more localized a topic's notability gets, the smaller the potential audience for an article about them gets — and there is a point at which the potential audience for an article is so small that any inappropriate or insulting edits could remain in the article for weeks, or even months, because no responsible editors have even seen it. That's one of the key reasons why our notability standards for people are designed to exclude figures whose notability and sourceability is too localized — not because we're trying to be jerks, but because below a certain level of regional prominence we lose the ability to properly guarantee the level of quality at which the article could actually be maintained.

Having a Wikipedia article can actually be a double-edged sword: some of the potential consequences can actually be negative ones, so our policies are designed in part to protect people as much as possible from that. And unfortunately, some people just aren't known widely enough, or referenced well enough, that we can properly protect their articles within the limits of our processes on here — so at that level, we have to say no article. It's not a comment on their worth as people; it's about the fact that below a certain level of prominence we don't have the resources or the processes to properly maintain an article or to prevent it from getting misused.

I hope that helps you understand a bit better why you're running into difficulty with the kind of topics you've chosen. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you'd be much better off familiarizing yourself with the kind of topics that we are likely to accept, and writing about those kinds of topics instead of purely local neighbourhood activists who aren't going to pass our inclusion tests. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply[edit]

thanks for taking the time Bearcat

but i am confused in that there is a requirement that information be sourced - and certainly if those sources are online and not ones only found in paper or libraries are used then it is easy to check.

and i recall Stephen Colbert making fun of wikipedia and asking that entries be changed in mischievous ways, so i fully understand the need for some quality control

i have done a number of minor edits and certainly those are reviewed so if somebody is writing something insulting or that is jibberish it shouldn't pass.

Mr. Meslin, for example, has an op-ed in today's Star and is certain to be published again given his prominence on this issue of electoral reform, and i have cited enough that this article on Meslin should be accepted.... i see other articles on wiki with far less that i have done.

Meanwhile, the work i put in on Mr. Graff has been rejected an deleted and is not even accessible by me for my own reference... if he runs again or does something newsworthy it is lost.

When i use wikipedia there are a lot of links to pages that are stubs and at some point i might like to fill those in though obviously i am looking at those pages because i don't know the answer.

I wanted to create pages from scratch to better understand the entire process and in the hope of accomplishing something i could feel proud of in the way that merely correcting the work of other wouldn't - there are few topics that have not already been created that are not local or borderline unless i were to do rush work on something out of the daily news, but i am still trying to learn the ropes.

If a topic is so minor that few people check it frequently then there is little to be lost if it is not accurate - surely someone who knows a living person will contact that person or report the inaccuracy - if we are talking about a failed candidate from an election long ago it would be another matter.

The other thing of course is that often people only get mentioned in the newspaper for doing bad things - of if they are quoted it is because they are supporting a story much as Meslin is often quoted, so we get controversial figures like James Sears being listed here but worthy subject like local Historian Gene Domagala (my next planned entry) are not.

Maybe there needs to be a secondary form of wikipedia, like a who's who or something - linkedin is of little value because of the limited information and it is controlled by the subject if an entry exists at all.

Frankly I feel like giving up on this because my hard work is not likely to pay off and be deleted without me knowing when i start if it will be approved or not - i do not find this process at all friendly to people starting out as it is confusing plus the hurdles and the general lack of consistent standards of what level i feel i am expected to meet versus what i often see already approved.

maybe there needs to be a more direct mentoring process for newcomers or something, but i feel i have wasted my time and for me to try again is not likely worth it if it is only going to leave me depressed by the result and not something that i find fun and rewarding.

Draft:Dave Meslin concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Dave Meslin, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Dave Meslin[edit]

Hello, Doctorbunsen. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Dave Meslin".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin Let's talk! 08:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Information icon Hi Doctorbunsen! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at San Juan Bautista, California that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 09:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doctorbunsen&oldid=1145667536"