User talk:Charl Hattingh

Welcome

Hello, Charl Hattingh, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Active Banana | bananaphone 18:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Charl Hattingh, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: User talk:Charl Hattingh was moved to Talk:HaShem YAHUAH by Charl Hattingh (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2010-08-14T11:54:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of HaShem YAHUAH

A tag has been placed on HaShem YAHUAH, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. /Hey Mid (contributions) 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Charl Hattingh/Hashem yahuah

User:Charl Hattingh/Hashem yahuah, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Charl Hattingh/Hashem yahuah and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Charl Hattingh/Hashem yahuah during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice, take it or leave it

You appear to be attempting to write a draft article here. You are right that drafts are best started in user space, which is what you are doing. However, there are quite a number of problems with the draft. I urge you to look at other articles in this encyclopedia to get a sense of the style and structure.

For example, articles are never written in the first person. The use of "we" or "I" is a sign you aren't following the usual rules.

Please check out WP:MOS for general guidance.

I've also noticed that it is very difficult for new editors to start right out creating an article. If you start my searching out other articles, and making improvements with edits, you'll get a sense of how articles are structured, and be in a better position to write an article. The subject you've started is interesting, but a substantial challenge. If you decided to be an architect, would you start out designing a skyscraper, of a more modest building first?--SPhilbrick T 16:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add to Sphilbrick's excellent words above that Wikipedia does not accept original research - your own interpretation of something. If you have some sources which would meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable (see here for the criteria) and independent (see here for the criteria) which can verify that the interpretation in the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, and can be verified by other editors, then it might be a good idea to add them. If the article is your own work (for example, for a dissertation or similar), or a theory which is not recognised as valid, then it would probably not be suitable for inclusion, interesting though it is. I'd concur with Sphilbrick's recommendation: start small before going for a "big" challenege! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me (or Sphilbrick, of course!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't sound like piling on, but I want to echo PhantomSteve's thought, with a personal story of my own. After I became aware of Wikipedia, but before I started editing, I had an idea that I thought would make a good website, with some information that might be valuable to others. I roughly sketched out the research plan to develop the material. Then i saw Wikipedia, and I thought it would be the perfect place for this research. However, after getting involved with Wikipedia, I came to understand that it is not a place for original research. Nothing wrong with original research, if done well, it is a very valuable contribution to human knowledge, but it is decidedly not the goal of Wikipedia to host such material. If your goal is to do original research on the sound of the name, this isn't the place for you. Best of luck with your task, but it should be done elsewhere. If you do a good job, and get it published in a reliable source, then it would be suitable material for an article here. Please feel free to contact PhantomSteve or myself, we'd both be happy to help you understand what types of material are appropriate here, and find out if there is something that you could do here that would belong.--SPhilbrick T 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]