Help talk:Your first article/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge with Wikipedia:Starting an article

I fully support this merge. Too many help pages trying to do the same thing are confusing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. They're way too similar. Benny White (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merge. One article was probably built off the other one, anyway. There's no point in keeping articles with just barely notable differences. — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge I came to suggest it and noticed Piotrus already had. I fully support a merge as both pages are centered on the same goal and just act as more things to read for your average newcomers who are most likely already overwhelmed by Wikipedia's policies and procedures. This merge would allow for us to create one succinct, easy to access page, where a user doesn't have to go to multiple sources to find what is almost the same information. MJ94 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - a large number of other help pages are duplicating each other and making things harder for new users, they could also do with merging. Jr8825 • Talk 15:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's nice that the opposes think that the two articles are aimed significantly differently, a view which ... is not borne out when one actually reads them. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So, anyone bold enough to merge the contents? Diego (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. Just judging from the titles, one article speaks to the newbie, the other to someone more experienced. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

usefull pag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.107.4 (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with Mr. Guye. If someone just wants a refresher on making an article, etc., they shouldn't have to dig through all the stuff designed for someone just starting out. They should stay seperate. Moonchïld9 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That would largely require a rewrite of Wikipedia:Starting an article, though. As they stand now, both articles contain mostly the same content. Diego (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

If some experienced, but lazy, editor needs a "refresher" it should be by some means other than the useless proliferation of redundant articles, there is already a Super simple guide.Atani (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support We should definitely merge these articles. All these help pages are just wasting valuble editing time! EMachine03 (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Better merge to keep things at hand and not dispersed.Solatido 12:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solatido (talk • contribs)
• Support: As has been stated above, the contents of the articles are largely the same. Further, I see no reason a single article can't be aimed at all editors, regardless of varying levels of experience. —zziccardi (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Can we get serious for a moment?

Neither this article nor the Wikipedia:Starting an article page is an excellent article yet, but the aim and the content is virtually identical, there is nothing really to merge. One of these articles should be deleted, NOW. Continuing this discussion isn't doing The Project any good, it's only showing that we can't make a decision about the obvious. The other article is at this point at a slightly lesser state of development, therefore delete that one NOW. Even if my assessment on that is wrong, neither article is getting the development it needs to become excellent; once that one is gone editorial energy will flow in the correct direction, development can continue. As it stands two poor articles linger. This topic is actually one of the most important in the entire Project, it is supposed to tell newcomers how to do what we do. This has been a lingering issue for more than a year, or maybe years, which is a waste of everyone's time. Once that other page is gone no one will miss it, then we can focus on developing this article into an excellent and useful article, which at this point neither one is.

Atani (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest we merge this page into Wikipedia:Starting an article, with a "Your first article" section targeted at newcomers. Thoughts? Benny White (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014

<<<draft article removed>>>

39.41.37.245 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This is not the place to write a new article. To do so, go to WP:AFC. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Replacing WP:N/N

So, after "Welcome to Wikipedia", the first advice given to new users, about creating new articles, in the do's and don'ts, when they are trying to understand if they can even have an article on another subject, takes them to the Notability Noticeboard.

Which has been closed since last year or longer.

So, we have thousands of new editors constantly confused about our notability guidelines, we point them often at this article to help them get some clue, and this article needs to tell them where they can go to get help regarding the complex minefield of Wikipedia notability.

Where should we send them?

I have marked that suggestion, which is the only assistance we provide there, with strikeout text, but we should add back an alternative. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for now, I'm sending them to the Teahouse. Suggestions and bold implementations of better ideas is strongly welcomed. --j⚛e decker^talk 05:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2014

<<<draft article removed>>>

Joey Fatts (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:AfC to request an article for creation. - Camyoung54 ^talk 02:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing the Kluge at the top

This is supposed to be a page where we teach new editors how its supposed to be done, instead this page has become almost an anti-Wikipedia page, the header section is full of so much kludge the article itself has been shoved completely off the bottom of the screen - not good. It's all going to go except for the Merge tag. I've created a dynamite little header section and introduction where things line up more or less and all of the boxes don't interfere too much with the text. If you want to turn dynamite into Amatol or RDX feel free to do so. Please restrain yourselves, though, from putting all of the kludge back in order to accommodate the ADHD generation - there is already a simplified version of this page. If you want to tell the story of the entire Universe told in a single word, then a sentence, then a page, then a chapter, then a whole book then read Finnegans Wake, I'm on about year eight of that project myself.Atani (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Reason for requiring registering

Why do you have to register to create an article? I want to know a reason why? 216.145.89.170 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This restriction was put in place after the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. A good place to start reading would be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-04/Seigenthaler revisited. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

about manar vayal. manar vayal is the smalest vilage, which is located in keel manar,near to pillur dam,the manar vayal is the only private property among the reserve forest. Sathyamurthy.s (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the place to post suggested articles; please try articles for creation - however, you will need to show there has been significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Lasya K

Paste of proposed article deleted

Prasanthbalanagu (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done{ - as it says in big bold letters at the top of this edit page "Do not create your first article on this page!"
Please try articles for creation - however, you will need to show there has been significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - there are none of these in what you posted. - Arjayay (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015

Abuukar1999 (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No request present Mlpearc (open channel) 04:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015

HI This Anil Kumar Nama Anilkumarnama (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

untitled

Please, help me! I want to create an new article. If you want, i can to send you my article to publish it. Thank you!178.59.111.104 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You can create new pages when you register an account. Read the instructions on Wikipedia:Your first article. — Jeraphine ^(talk) 13:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015

103.42.175.174 (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC) niraj singh

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015

SGNDSSI (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Shri Guru Nanak Dev Sewa Society International is a Non-Profit Organization giving religious mindfulness, taking activities to keep peace overall and spare environment.

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Your first article. If you want to start an article, please use WP:Articles for creation however, you will need to show there has been significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Arjayay (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Help

Why was my article "Kawempe Muslim Secondary School" deleted? Ashirafubulwadda (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ashirafubulwadda: Although this page is not meant to be a help page, what you are looking for is Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. However, I have gone ahead and looked into the deletion log for the page. Found here, the deletion log shows the reason the page was deleted. In this case, it would be because the article appeared to be "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". This what you can do about it section should provide you with options to follow. -- Orduin ^Discuss 15:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2015

Mohammad Zaid Ansari (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Your first article.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

najim 20:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No changes presented to be made -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Technical Update Hub

This Site will provide the Latest Technical Updates.

It is started by an entrepreneur ROHIT JAIN(Software Developer).

This Site contains the different-2 article of latest technical updates.

Rohitjain.arya (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Technical Update Hub

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Take strong issue with representation of first entry of references

Though editing here for years, this is the first time I have come across this training page, and I have to take strong issue with the way in which the following presents initial entry of sources:

Entering references

The very first thing you should write in your article is a list of the source(s) for your information. For now, just enter them like this (and they will automatically turn into links):

• (1) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/books/12vonnegut.html
• (2) http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_shuttle.html

The issues I take this this content is as follows. First, this presumes and so supports the notion that typically adequate sources of information to start articles are web-based sources, an assertion which is often untrue—though the two sources chosen here may indeed be good sources, the vast majority of web sources are unsuitable as sources at wikipedia. Second, this initial presentation of sourcing offers it as contentless text strings that are only functional as links (that cannot be traced to the actual textual content, apart from the function of the link), rather than deriving from the web sources the usual important components of a true encyclopedic citation that cannot become meaningless when the bare URL dies as a link. Third, this absolute dearth of details suggest—quite contrary to best practices of referencing—that details are unimportant, when in fact the opposite is true; it is through the details that one arrives at whether one should be using the source in the first place. (No author at the website? No date of publication? Publishing house that one cannot google to find the city it's located in? Evidences of too near a relationships between the webpage and the article subject, i.e., evidence of non-independence? These are only the beginning of the hints, available through sourcing details, of possible poor sources.) In short, this initial presentation falls far short of the way we should suggest students, editors, or any others in training, to record their first references when writing encyclopedic content.

Here are a set of six alternatives to the above, which make clear, A., that printed (formally published) sources are the best sources for wikipedia, B., that a critical first step in choosing a citation is making sure they are good sources (which can further be assessed, web page-derived or not, based on by whether, for instance, that the information being drawn upon has an author, title, date of publication, etc.), C., that a further immediately important step is to extract from the web-location easily traced bibliographic information, to ensure the information extracted for the article remains verifiable after the URL and link become nonfunctional, D., that more is better—that it is better to cut and paste in too much information about the source, for others to properly format and edit down, than it is to pull minimal material—and that the details regarding sources are critically important, rather than unimportant, E., that good, high value, classic or recent sources are key to good editor contributions, and F., that varieties of source types are generally needed for good sourcing of articles. (After perusing the appended bullets, ask a scientist you know if they are good sources. Note some are print, other are web, and those from web from their onset appearing here have date accessed attached. If teaching, teach quality.)

Here are examples of good sorts of starting citation entries, that can then be edited into a consistent format, used to put into templates to standardize appearance, etc. Note, I am away that are monotonically scientific. Feel free to substitute non-scientific examples of books, journals, book chapters, etc., for these:

• R.E. Gawley & J. Aube. 1996, Principles of Asymmetric Synthesis (Tetrahedron Organic Chemistry Series, Vol. 14), New York:Pergamon Press, pp. 121-130, esp. p. 127, ISBN 0080418759.

• E.S. Radisky & D.E. Koshland, 2002, A clogged gutter mechanism for protease inhibitors, Proceedings of the National Academy of Scences U.S.A., Vol. 99, No. 16, pp. 10316-10321.

• A.M.P. Koskinen, 2012, Asymmetric Synthesis of Natural Products, Chichester, UK:John Wiley and Sons, pp. 3-7.

• Ian Fleming, 2010, Molecular Orbitals and Organic Chemical Reactions: Student Edition, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 158-160; see also Ian Fleming, 2010, Molecular Orbitals and Organic Chemical Reactions: Reference Edition, John Wiley and Sons, pp. 214–215, ISBN 0470746580, http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Orbitals-Organic-Chemical-Reactions/dp/0470746599, accessed 5 January 2014.</ref>

• H. B. Bürgi, J. D. Dunitz, J. M. Lehn, G. Wipff, 1974, Stereochemistry of reaction paths at carbonyl centers, Tetrahedron, Vol. 30, Issue 12, pages 1563–1572, DOI 10.1016/S0040-4020(01)90678-7.

• C.H. Heathcock, 1990, Understanding and controlling diastereofacial selectivity in carbon-carbon bond-forming reactions, Aldrichimica Acta 23(4):94-111, esp. p. 101, see http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-aldrich/docs/Aldrich/Acta/al_acta_23_04.pdf, accessed 9 June 2014.

Bottom line, with training such as this, it is not in the least surprising that many articles appear, and remain, only with the worst sorts of sourcing, and many remain with URL-only sets of sources that eventually succumb to link rot—and become and remain poorly or completely unsourced, and therefore unverifiable, and non-encyclopedic content. This training document needs desperately to be improved, to reflect best practices of scholarship, rather than "just enough to get by". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.87.100 (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Sankar pure amar bari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandipsahoo1234 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

Sandip sahoo Sandipsahoo1234 (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

Khanamar101 (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC) List Of HD Channels In Pakistan.

List

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Your first article.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Biografia Italo Salizzato

Il mio primo articolo della pagina in questione è stato pubblicato su Wikipedia il giorno 29 Luglio 2013... " L'Archivio Flavio Beninati " l'ha pubblicato e copiato successivamente! Pertanto chiedo di ottenere aiuto sperando di risolvere il mio problema! Nel ringraziarVi per la cortese attenzione e pazienza invio distinti saluti. --Ermo casella (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ermo casella: Il materiale è stato inviato a Wikipedia italiana nel 2013, ma la pagina di origine ha un avviso di copyright "© 2011". Se avete scritto e si possiede il copyright, si prega di leggere:

• it:Wikipedia:Copyright
• it:Wikipedia:OTRS/Procedura 3

JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

BAITES OF NIRTHEAST,INDIA.

BAITES are the subtribe of the Vaiphei tribes.In Manipur,they dwell in chandel,ukhrul&churachandpur districts. #B.phaicham-one of the well-known villages of Baites in Manipur where Pu.Thangkhojang Baite is the village chief. Inspite of it being established recently(1993) yhe village developed rapidly and soon would be a model village. Thangboi zomi (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Thangboi zomi. Please check if our article on Biate people covers this group: it does state ...the Bengalis and other plain tribes call them ‘Baite', and includes Manipur among the areas of "Present Settlement": Noyster (talk), 12:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

Madhuramap (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Madhuramap:  Not done, because you have not said what change you want made. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to...

Make my own article. I tried clicking the pencil to write an article, but it won't let me. Please help me.

P.S. I wasn't going to put anything bad on there, I was just gonna write about celebrities and what I know about them Summer Ann Wood (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on the user's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do we recommend new users create articles directly instead of going through AfC?

That is a real question. Why does this document do that? Wouldn't it better for everyone if this advised people to go through AfC? Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

COI and article creation

This dif brings up something that could use some discussion here. People do create articles about themselves or subjects where they have a COI all the time, and just telling them not to, is not going to stop that. (think Prohibition)

I do think it is a good idea to move this up higher but I don't think the content is helpful as it could be. Right now the content in the intro says...

• Do not create: pages about yourself, your company, your band, or your friends; pages that advertise; personal essays; or other articles you would not find in an encyclopedia.

And down below, under "Things to avoid" it says

Articles about yourself, your friends, your website, a band you're in, your teacher, a word you made up, or a story you wrote

If you are worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, let someone else add an article for you. Putting your friends in an encyclopedia may seem like a nice surprise or an amusing joke, but articles like this are likely to be removed. In this process, feelings may be hurt and you may be blocked from editing if you repeatedly make attempts to re-create the article. These things can be avoided by a little forethought on your part. The article may remain if you have enough humility to make it neutral and you really are notable, but even then it's best to submit a draft for approval and consensus of the community instead of just posting it up, since unconscious biases may still exist of which you may not be aware.

I think it would be more helpful if the intro thing said

• Do not directly create: pages about yourself, your company, your band, or your friends; pages that advertise; personal essays; or other articles you would not find in an encyclopedia. If after reading this, it is important for you to try to create an article, you will have a better chance of the article remaining and not being deleted, if you follow the articles for creation process and use it to create a draft. Independent volunteers will review the article to make sure it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guideines before it is published.

And the text below said:

Articles about yourself, your friends, your website, a band you're in, your teacher, a word you made up, or a story you wrote

If you are worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, let someone else add an article for you. Putting your friends in an encyclopedia may seem like a nice surprise or an amusing joke, but articles like this are likely to be removed. In this process, feelings may be hurt and you may be blocked from editing if you repeatedly make attempts to re-create the article. These things can be avoided by a little forethought on your part. The article may remain if you have enough humility to make it neutral and you really are notable, but even then it's best to submit a draft for approval and consensus of the community via the articles for creation process instead of just posting it up, since unconscious your conflict of interest creates biases may still exist of which you may not be aware.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with changing the wording of the conflict of interest policy so as to be less discouraging about writing about oneself or one's company or whatever. Because of the Dunning-Kruger effect and the large number of new editors who already come here in order to publicize themselves, any easing of the caution against COI writing will just result in more work for the reviewers, because any easing of the caution makes it more likely that the new non-notable editors, or sole proprietors of non-notable corporations, or leaders of non-notable bands, that implies that independent volunteers will make sure it complies with policies and guidelines, will result in many requests for independent volunteers to bring the draft up to standards (when it can't be brought up to notability). That is my opinion. I respectfully disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. Like I said this feels as fruitless as Prohibition to me. But I do hear you. What about the rest of it, with regard to using AfC and declaring your COI? Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2016

Thank you for clear reminding for me regarding protected some editor copy-paste things from another links. And with here, i do apologize for those kind of violation and could you please give me another change to fix my article also please give me advice for guidance? thank you very much for your kind cooperation and help. Aslimassahitam (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Your first article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do we encourage new people to create articles in main space?

In fact, why do we even mention the possibility?

Granted, many newbies won't see this page, but for those who do, what is the possible advantage of suggesting that they might create an article directly, rather than through Draft (or user space)?

I spend a lot of time on the Help Desks, and see so many questions that amount to "Why is my article up for deletion?" (Admittedly there are also plenty of "Why has my article been rejected?" - but at least then the draft is still there for them to work on.)

Actually, I would like to see creation of pages in main space be subject to a right that has to be granted, but that is a discussion for somewhere else than here. But I would seriously like to edit this page to remove all mention of creating a main-space article; or if that is going too far, have it present AFD oops! AFC as the norm, rather than just something to "consider". --ColinFine (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This was apparently tried in the past and the WMF vetoed it. See the discussion here starting with "pull up a chair". Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The part that says "Pull up a chair" hopes it isn't WP:TLDR, but it is WP:TLDR. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I said that I wasn't proposing that here. (After reading the link, to check that that was in response to the bit I'm not proposing here, as opposed to the bit that I am). --ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the original post. I see no mention of WP:AFC at all. Either this guideline page predates AFC, or it was adopted from a previous guideline page that predates AFC. I also see a mention to select Show Preview, and then on seeing that, click Save Page. That, in article space, is bad advice. Although some editors insist that new articles may be created in article space, other editors, in my view rightly, don't look at whether an article is under construction before tagging it for AFD. It is bad enough to encourage a new editor to move an article into main space. It is even worse to encourage a new editor to create a partly finished article in main space and then finish it. Since the title of this guideline is "Your first article", it should be oriented at new editors who should be gently but strongly encouraged to use AFC. Experienced editors should either use AFC or create an article in user space, and should then move it when they are satisfied that it will not be nominated for deletion. I think that this guideline, which is old, needs a certain amount of fixing to encourage the use of draft space, and to discourage the use of article space as a working medium. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't directly relevant, but I will also note that many questions at the Help Desk are of the form, "Why was my article deleted?" when it was declined, or "Why have I been blocked?" when the fact that the editor is posting using a pseudonym indicates that they have not been blocked. The former is probably just a matter of misunderstanding the complex terminology. The latter is, to me, puzzling, but I can now see that if experienced editors identify 10 questions and mistakes by new editors to try to address in advance, there will be at least 15 questions and at least 15 mistakes, not mentioning the ones that can't be parsed because the English isn't good enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just edited point 7 on the page to make Draft (or User) space the norm, Robert McClenon. Feel free to improve what I've written: is it TL;DR? --22:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

it's great. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Published information only

I would like to add a point to the list of tips to say:

"Do not put any information - and especially not any opinions - into the article that you have not found in a published source. Information that you know yourself, or that is in unpublished documents, is not acceptable unless it is backed up by a published source."

I think that is an appropriate and proportionate thing to say at this stage - not going into detail about reliability or independence, but guarding against some of the worst problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 23:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016

DiamondVea (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)