User talk:StoryBuilder

Welcome!

Hello, StoryBuilder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page KeepCup did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Oblivy (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Eric Tweedale Stadium, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Oblivy (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was somewhat disappointed to see that you continued to add unsourced content to articles even after I took steps to revert your initial editing attempts. If you disagree with my actions, please feel free to explain, but I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that everything added to a wikipedia article must be supported by a reliable source. I've given you some links above, please familiarize yourself as following them will help you get your draft approved as well.

One other comment - the "m" minor checkbox is for non-substantive edits like spelling or syntax corrections. Even adding a word or two may be enough to make it a non-minor edit, but once you reach a sentence length you probably shouldn't use it. Oblivy (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oblivy, great that you are monitoring this page. What is your connection to this incredible facility? I'm very new to Wikipedia so your support is super welcome. Given the accolades Eric Tweedale has received I was surprised to see the architect and the projects awards not cited. I will endeavour to provide references over the coming days and would appreciate it if you could bear with me and provide guidance rather than delete the content. Here is the link to the architects webpage. https://www.dwp.design/project/eric-tweedale-stadium StoryBuilder (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just an ordinary editor, but some of your edits triggered a search that I monitor for problematic edits (not trying to characterize your edits, it's a search that surfaces editors who might not be following policies and guidelines).

I'm sorry if the reversions are a bit brutal but whatever was deleted can be found in the history. Until it has support it should probably remain out of the article. If you want to write as you do research, or just try things out, I suggest you use your sandbox then copy the wikitext over once it's ready to publish. Oblivy (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what if the information is correct, shouldn't you seek to cite it also rather than just delete it? StoryBuilder (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a fact is verifiable then in principle it should be cited. Citation to primary sources is a problem but potentially an option especially for easy to verify facts like a place of business. Something like a claim on a company website is really hard to justify as a source. If it's unverifiable, then how do we know it's true?

As for delete vs keep, the contrary argument is that unsourced material has no place in Wikipedia, pervasive as it may be. There are many, many resources on Wikipedia that talk about these principles but WP:V, WP:BRD and WP:ONUS are relevant. Oblivy (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made a small edit with an external reference to a page that isn't a company page. Is this acceptable? StoryBuilder (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with that citation is that it's not independent. Personally, I'd say it's OK if it's the only thing available, although something like a newspaper article mentioning the opening would be better. Even a government gazette notice announcing the contract would be better.

A further difficulty, perhaps risk, is that it looks very much like advertising. You have done the right thing by disclosing your COI to Arch. But if you add a link to the article it starts looking like self-promotion which would violate WP:NOTPROMO. People can get prickly about "COI Editors" and you're already working against an assessment that you've written an advertising page.

Personally I think if you can bring the Arch article up to Wikipedia standards then you may be the best one to write it. Find two multi-paragraph articles about the company that aren't just interviews or reproducing press releases (including blurbs in things like awards programs) and you may have a good argument. The Newcastle article is close but it's not about the firm and you've only cited it in one place. If those articles don't exist then maybe the page won't make the cut. Oblivy (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Studio ARCH (August 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Studio ARCH and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, StoryBuilder! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done some editing and will endeavour to reference all the awards with their award sites. Are you able to review the copy to see if it complies and then I'll keep working on the award citations? Your help is much appreciated. StoryBuilder (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]