This is Matopotato's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
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:
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!
Stalwart
111 13:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
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!
|
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.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Rcruzmedia ( talk) 13:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)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)
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)
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. Stalwart 111 10:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)