User talk:Tasdienes

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Tasdienes, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Learning..[edit]

So the content you proposed at Ethereum, and the content in your sandbox that you just created, are - in Wikipedia -- horrible.

The problem is that you are starting with bad sources. Everything in Wikipedia depends on sources. As long as you keep using company blogs and press releases and the like as sources, your edits are going to keep getting rejected.

If you start with independent, secondary sources that are themselves trying to convey knowledge, and you summarize those sources, things will go much better.

But you will of course do as you will. Why you want to beat your head against the wall, I do not understand. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Dear Jytdog, I will be glad to incorporate additional sources and citations into the article if you feel that will improve its quality. However, I hope you will understand that essentially the only secondary sources which exist in this area of technology are blog articles and videos of talks (which are often summarized or reported on in blog articles). I am concerned that no amount of sources such as these will satisfy you, in which case the only alternative would seem to be not writing about this technology. I would also like to point out that most of the Wikipedia articles I have read about other topics in this area of technology, including several that I linked to in the article, rely on similar sources. Please confirm if you agree that this is a reasonable approach. Tasdienes (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't personalize this. These are community standards and I am trying to help you understand them.

It is absolutely true that Wikipedia doesn't do well with cutting edge things. That is direct result of its design. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability (please read that)

Our mission is to convey accepted knowledge to readers. We find "accepted knowledge" from high quality secondary sources. Where those don't exist, there is not much we can say.

So many people mistake WP for yet another blog in the blogosphere, sourced from other blogs. WP is not a blog. There is a lot of stuff that we cannot discuss much because it is too new. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

btw there is a lot of shitty content in WP. This place is open, and lots of people wander in and do crappy things. It is a miracle (really) that anything is decent. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Plasma (blockchain technology) (April 24)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 1997kB was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Plasma (blockchain technology) 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:Plasma (blockchain technology), 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.

‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tasdienes! Having an article 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! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]