User talk:TheWritingGuy
TheWritingGuy, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi TheWritingGuy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC) |
Dear TheWritingGuy, you have recently added a substantial amount of text to this article. By doing so, you have changed the subject of the article. If you would like to write about the German Stupka family, I recommend you create a new article with a title such as "Stupka (German family)". However, please note that articles on Wikipedia need to be properly sourced by reliable independent sources and they must pass notability tests. Please see WP:N. In addition, articles should be written neutrally and Wikipedia is not a place for personal reflection, original research or essays, see WP:NOTESSAY. Unfortunately, the added text will need to be revisited keeping this in mind in order to be added to the encyclopaedia. If you have any questions, pls let me know. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there, I just undid your changes again. The references are unfortunately not sufficient (self published articles or summaries from genealogy websites are not considered good sources). The tonality of the article is not encyclopaedic and reminds one more of an essay. Pls see my previous comments. It may be an idea to follow the articles for creation process WP:AFC. Maybe also read through WP:YFA. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 21:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Jake Brockman, thank you for your feedback. Several remarks on my side. First, I do not wish to write about the German Stupka family. Given the title of the article is "Stupka", it is supposed to contain information on the Stupka family "as such", t.m. worldwide. And this is precisely what my article is about... Having most of the information first-hand (I am one of the family members), the family originated in Germany, but is now spread nearly all over US, many still live in Europe, and some families also reside in Russia - which is all comprised in my text. The information value of my article is, by any means, much higher than the original very short mention of Stupka being a Ukrainian surname, which is not even half-true! Second, this is my first contribution to the Wikipedia knowledge base. I admit I am not quite familiar with the encyclopaedic style of writing, as you correctly assumed. However, I do not see any reason for my rather comprehensive contribution to be rejected in its entirety, and the article to be returned to its original state, since the short original (now twice-renewed) only contains partial and extremely incomplete information. The text tonality sure can be adjusted to be more neutral and more of the encyclopaedia style, will try to do that... On the other hand, I was very much dismayed by having my work rejected as such. Also, please understand, me and 4 other members of my family in the US have made substantial research into the subject, and, unfortunately, apart from there are no other materials or written documents (apart from a couple of letters written by our ancestors, that contain even extensively more "personal refelctions" than my textual summary. Therefore, I would like to ask you not to reject my work in its wholeness, rather, to only mark those passages that you find "not encyclopaedic", and allow the rest to be published on Wikipedia for the others to see (there is valuable information on the Stupka family incorporated in the text, cross-referenced and thus verified by not one, but several genealogy websites proving the ancestors really lived in the time frames, were named, etc. as I indicated. And I have always believed information (independently verified by several sources), freely accessible to public, is at the very core why Wikipedia actually exists. TheWritingGuy (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- TheWritingGuy please read verify.Flat Out (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Jake Brockman, thank you for your feedback. Several remarks on my side. First, I do not wish to write about the German Stupka family. Given the title of the article is "Stupka", it is supposed to contain information on the Stupka family "as such", t.m. worldwide. And this is precisely what my article is about... Having most of the information first-hand (I am one of the family members), the family originated in Germany, but is now spread nearly all over US, many still live in Europe, and some families also reside in Russia - which is all comprised in my text. The information value of my article is, by any means, much higher than the original very short mention of Stupka being a Ukrainian surname, which is not even half-true! Second, this is my first contribution to the Wikipedia knowledge base. I admit I am not quite familiar with the encyclopaedic style of writing, as you correctly assumed. However, I do not see any reason for my rather comprehensive contribution to be rejected in its entirety, and the article to be returned to its original state, since the short original (now twice-renewed) only contains partial and extremely incomplete information. The text tonality sure can be adjusted to be more neutral and more of the encyclopaedia style, will try to do that... On the other hand, I was very much dismayed by having my work rejected as such. Also, please understand, me and 4 other members of my family in the US have made substantial research into the subject, and, unfortunately, apart from there are no other materials or written documents (apart from a couple of letters written by our ancestors, that contain even extensively more "personal refelctions" than my textual summary. Therefore, I would like to ask you not to reject my work in its wholeness, rather, to only mark those passages that you find "not encyclopaedic", and allow the rest to be published on Wikipedia for the others to see (there is valuable information on the Stupka family incorporated in the text, cross-referenced and thus verified by not one, but several genealogy websites proving the ancestors really lived in the time frames, were named, etc. as I indicated. And I have always believed information (independently verified by several sources), freely accessible to public, is at the very core why Wikipedia actually exists. TheWritingGuy (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Stupke (September 23)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stupke and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stupke, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your draft article, Draft:Stupke
[edit]
Hello, TheWritingGuy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stupke".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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 and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, 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. Legacypac (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)