Jump to content

User talk:Santoman

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

Hello, Santoman, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for passing that along. It could save my sanity. Cheers. Santoman (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no worries, at least you found the teahouse on your own :) Yes Wikipedia is confusing at first, but as long as edits are made in good faith you'll find lots of people willing to help, and the teahouse is the first place we say to ask for new users. I only had a quick look at the article as I'm just about to go out but one thing I would say is to note that sources that are interviews are not deemed independent reliable sources so do not help notability. Have fun KylieTastic (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the heads up. I guess there are two of those in there which could be deleted/replaced. Just one question. How come I come across quite a few incomplete live Wikipedia pages that have almost nothing on them and no sources at the bottom? How did they get through the crazy vetting system with no substance or content? Santoman (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is history. In the early days much more was allowed as the polices got defined. Then less was allowed as we got closer to the policies and guidelines we have now. The we had so much spam (promo, copyright-violations, attack pages, hoaxs, etc) that Draft/AfC became required for new users. ~80% of submissions get declined or rejected - yes a number get just left rather than improved till acceptable but a large amount are just non notable/junk. For those that can create directly in main-space the next vetting level is Wikipedia:New pages patrol (NPP). However, there is still a lot of historic junk that either gets improved or sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (to be discussed if to keep or remove). Unfortunately their are some who create articles on notable topics but don't add the references to show it, and leave to others to fix. With 6.6+ Million articles this is a huge job.... but slowly we get there. Hope that explains things. Also see Help:Notifications - if you link an editors name such as [[User:KylieTastic]] or {{u|KylieTastic}} or {{ping|KylieTastic}} and sign the post with the ~~~~ they will be notified (apart for some who turn it off). i.e. you should have been notified three times when we replied at the teahouse. I just noticed this question as I tend to watch pages for a day or so after welcoming new users. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised I'm too old-school and always use source editing but if you use Visual Editor from the reply links you just put an @ and then the users name (case-sensitive) I believe. KylieTastic (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the history lesson. I can certainly see how and why there are some pages that don't meet current guidelines or policy.
I was about to go and start editing the submission to remove any puffery or anything that sounded like an advertisement. That would be the easy part as now my submission has been rejected due to a lack of reliable sources! @GoingBatty has done a wonderful job informing me of where things aren't up to scratch, but now I don't know what to do.
How do you cite sources for something that hasn't been widely reported in the media or other scholarly sources. I can probably cite one or two more from the Vanuatu Daily Post - but that's the only newspaper that's written stories about the museum. And I'm willing to bet Wikipedia won't regard it as a reliable news source.
I'll be up front about this. I'm the Project Manager and I've written all the documentation on the museum. It's a very small not for profit organisation out in the middle of the South Pacific. How is somewhere like ours going to get on Wikipedia when there just isn't that much written about us? Cheers Santoman (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Santoman: Hi there! It appears you're trying to write the draft backwards: writing what you know and then searching for sources. Instead, Wikipedia articles should be based on what independent published reliable sources have written about the subject. This happens frequently when someone with a conflict of interest (COI) attempts to create an article.
Before continuing, you must disclose your COI on your user page.
Then, gather all the independent published reliable sources (i.e. those not based on press releases or interviews) and summarize only what they say. Don't include anything you know as the project manager. Help:Your first article has a lot of helpful information.
Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and yes you're right. It was a case of a 'newbie backfitting exercise'. I see what you mean and will have to attempt a rewrite me thinks. Reagrds. Santoman (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already had this clarified over at the help desk from a very experienced editor (& admin) and I concur I see no issues with the Vanuatu Daily Post as long as they are not just interviews. As @GoingBatty said do post the required COI disclosure on your talk page. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm managing to find most things. But I can't help but wonder if there's just too much information for people to wade through. It's all incredibly detailed but very hard to get your head around. It's like, nothing is simple.
That said, I know I couldn't have got this far (which is a tiny step), along the path to approval without the fabulous people who are only too eager to help. So thank you.
The Daily Post articles are thankfully not just interviews. So hopefully they'll be Ok. Cheers. Santoman (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Santoman, I went and pulled most of what looked like "advertising" language to me. This too can be a really hard one to get a hang of, since many Wikipedia editors use "advertising" or "promo" in a much broader way than you might expect. Mostly, it means something like "overly positive language" (so, "promotional") or "facts only relevant to people planning to visit the site" (thus, "advertising"). If it's something you'd write in a government grant application, you probably don't want to put it on the Wikipedia article. (That's why I removed that whole last section. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think trying to de-promo that bit will ultimately be a waste of your time.) Feel free to rework anything I did - my intent is to help you get this through more easily, not to boss you around. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you for taking the time to edit my draft. As I'm new to the whole Wikiverse, I thought I would need to make all my changes first, resubmit my draft article and then the brilliance of editors like yourself would jump in and tweak it and rewrite bits. Then I'm guessing at some point after that it gets peer reviewed for inclusion into Wikipedia. Learning all the time. Cheers. Santoman (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, usually that's about how it goes - you make changes, submit the draft, and then reviewers make an accept/decline/reject decision. They might also pick at it a bit if they're not sure whether it ought to be accepted or not but they think they can make some positive changes. You also might see some bot accounts swing by and tidy up various minor issues. But mostly, you won't see anyone other than yourself in your AfC drafts; some people who look at newly published articles will show up once they're in mainspace.
Right now your article isn't in the AfC queue (it's more of a "heap" than a queue, since reviewers can look at articles in any order), so no one will review it until you submit, and it's unlikely that any other editors will come by until then either. Sometimes uninvolved editors will submit articles they didn't write (to rescue something that looks abandoned but fixable, for example), but usually you get left to yourself unless you specifically ask for help. -- asilvering (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AsilveringI'm back with a new draft. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your comments. Cheers. Santoman (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes back again and even more confused, but delighted. It seems my article is now live on Wikipedia. So that says I have absolutely no idea how the system works.
I thought I'd be making changes and edits and finding more references, etc. for months. Then there's the queue I saw at the start of the roughly 4,400 articles ahead of me that were waiting to be critiqued by editors. Just what were they? I think I need to go and find "The Complete Dummies Guide to Wikipedia". I'm sure it will exist somewhere! Cheers. Santoman (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are currently over 4,500+ articles waiting for review but luckily for you it is not a queue. We have many reviewers that specialise in certain areas of interest. Also many submissions that have been waiting a long time are hard to review, or borderline acceptable, or long complex and specialised etc. Articles like yours that are not too long and have enough accessible sources are more likely to reviewed quicker. However, it is also a bit of luck of someone finding it - some just use the feature to select at random. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and thanks for the email - happy to help :) KylieTastic (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on your first Wikipedia article! -- asilvering (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And thank you for your wisdom. Cheers. Santoman (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: South Pacific WWII Museum (May 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by GoingBatty were:
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.
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.
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 after they have been resolved.
GoingBatty (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Santoman! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! GoingBatty (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: South Pacific WWII Museum has been accepted

[edit]
South Pacific WWII Museum, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Santoman&oldid=1158420671"