User talk:Snaf2k
Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]
{{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miroslava Kettounen.
- To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miroslava Kettounen, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 23:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission Miroslava Kettounen[edit]
Hello Snaf2k. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Miroslava Kettounen.
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 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, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Miroslava Kettounen}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Consumer Priority Service[edit]
If you saw the discussion then presumably you'll be aware why this was deleted. The consensus among the people who took part in the discussion was that the company is not notable enough for inclusion. The relevant guideline that would need to be satisfied is WP:CORP. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
A summary of some important site policies and guidelines[edit]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
- We have a tutorial, The Wikipedia Adventure, if you would like to learn more about editing Wikipedia.
- Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not change others' comments.
- "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
- Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
- Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Also, please don't assume that just because you don't know something that academia doesn't know it either. Babylons ruins were located 200 years ago, and all research in that area since then has confirmed that, yep, that's where Babylon was. It's location is not "unknown," it's quite well known. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The bottom line[edit]
If you try to argue that one individual random map from 400 years ago that you like, (I like it too as a work of art), is more reliable than contemporary academic sources, then you will probably be blocked. There are many websites where you can share your own personal interpretations of these sources. Wikipedia is not among them. Wikipedia will always strive to accurately summarize what reliable contemporary sources say, and Wikipedia editors decide what is reliable based on consensus. If you you want to help shape consensus, then engage with that process seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)