User talk:Matopotato

Welcome!

Hello, Matopotato, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stalwart111 13:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Horstmann Technique (September 14)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Horstmann Technique.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello! Matopotato, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

Talkback

Hello, Matopotato. You have new messages at MatthewVanitas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your submission at AfC The Horstmann Technique was accepted

The Horstmann Technique, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Rcruzmedia (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The Horstmann Technique for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Horstmann Technique is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Horstmann Technique until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kolbasz (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding content to Wikipedia

Hi!

Thanks for your nice note.

The issue I had was that the sourcing you included in that article were all to rather partisan sources. That is to say that the sources were mainly promotional in nature rather than being the kinds of high-quality material that would be needed to pass the independent verification we need, especially for articles about ostensibly medical topics (see this page for more on that). I think the problem is that most of the material was essentially original research in the sense that there hasn't been effective independent review of the topic yet. If you can find sources that are independent, please add them and write on the basis of them!

jps (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

To respond in brief, controversial topics can be discussed at Wikipedia, but there is such a history that there are a lot of guidelines for how they should be sourced: WP:FRINGE is a useful guideline to that effect. The problem I see in many of your suggestions is the lack of independent sources which means it is difficult to know what to take seriously and what is just promotion. The existence of independent sources is one of the primary means by which you can argue that a topic should be included in Wikipedia. If you can't find independent sources, it may not be possible to write a neutral article without engaging in original research. jps (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Welcome page

Hi Matopotato, thanks for the note. I realised that after months of editing you hadn't officially been welcomed. Articles for deletion isn't a particularly nice welcome. It's also not fair to expect you to participate in discussions like that without having explained the basics of editing here. Try to get a handle on things like notability, verifiability and the use of reliable sources. Those will make starting a new article much easier. The article you started had a few problems, the biggest of which is the question of whether the subject is notable. If it isn't then you'll have a tough time convincing people it should stay. Stalwart111 10:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stalwart and thanks for the explanation, I went through some of the steps mentioned when I was writing, after initial rejection for lack of references I corrected and then it went to accepted, albeit with a wish for further enhancements. I haven't honestly done much work since. The topic of notability is quite interesting since I am on the receiving end of this debate, it does not sound like a non-controversial aspect given one has different opinions on a topic. We'll see what happens. I have tried to explain my thoughts to the user who edited the article in the first place. And after removing all references, it was picked up by another user who propose to delete it. Perhaps this is how it works when something is of controversial nature. If this will prove to be off-putting or encouraging, I can't tell, but my misty views of openness, freedom of views opinions etc is hampered a bit by the almighty truth that some believe is out there. I am not saying Wikipedia should allow "anything" in, but the censoring in order to reach absolute truth is probably an illusion as well... Sorry, got a bit philosophical there. Cheers, Matopotato (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem - the whole thing is a bit philosophical at times. I've suggested (in that discussion) "userfication" (see WP:UFY). That will allow for the article to be returned to a "draft" space (unpublished) to allow you to continue working on it. It's a better option than deletion, I think. It means that once you think it is ready you can re-submit it and hopefully this time someone legitimate can help you through the process of having it accepted. I'm happy to help again at that point if you would like me to. You should also try to get a handle on talk page coding like colons for indentation and single paragraphs without new lines. It not essential but it will help you contribute to discussions. Stalwart111 11:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)