User talk:Dr.ON-fog

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dr.ON-fog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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! Gurt Posh (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Total Influence. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gurt Posh (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TotalInfluence Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TotalInfluence Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

Hey, why you delete the article Total Influence. What's wrong? I tried, but you have erased all. Dr.ON-fog (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not meet our inclusion criteria. While the online game that was the subject of the article does exist, we don't have articles on everything or everyone that exists, only those topics which are regarded as worthwhile or notable. To decide if a topic is notable we rely on WP:Reliable sources having written significantly about the topic, and then use what the sources have said, and cite the sources. If an editor finds an article that looks as though it doesn't meet our inclusion criteria the article will be listed for at least seven days on either Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed deletion to get a second opinion. I examined the article after the seven days had expired and agreed with the nominator that there were not enough reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic, therefore I deleted it following the appropriate process. The article as written described the game, but did not explain why it was notable, nor have any reviews or comments on it. The article did not use reliable sources but used the contributor's own observations which is against our policy of WP:OR. If you wish to write about this game you could consult Wikipedia:Article creation and use the Wikipedia:Article wizard. Many people find it helps if they edit a few existing articles before creating a new one. And others find it helps to read some of the guidelines and policies that we have, and to join in with discussions. We are always in need of new editors, and don't wish to put people off. But we also need to ensure that new articles are of a minimum standard. We do have problems in some topic areas, such as Massively multiplayer online games, where most of the articles are of a poor standard, and don't have sufficient reliable sources. An editor who knows this topic well, and knows the publications where such games are written about, would be a valuable asset to us. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are all difficult. First of all, I did this article based on similar, there are here and no one removes it. I wrote as well as the others. For some reason no other sources are not seen. Secondly, it is an exact copy of my own articles from the Russian Wikipedia. There is no problem here, all the standards. Third, I am not a native English and asked for help in the development of the article. But, apparently, it's easier to remove than a help. And anyway, you say that you are looking for new editors, but do not attempts to help. Dr.ON-fog (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the points you are making. Unfortunately there are a number of poor articles on Wikipedia, and the topic area of online games, as I said above, contains many poor articles. It is a matter of concern to us that there are so many poor articles, especially when editors such as yourself are using them as role models. Unfortunately Wikipedia is staffed by unpaid volunteers who work on this project in their spare time. Most editors, such as yourself, will tend to work on topics that interest them, and will often prefer to do fun things like create articles, than have to review, improve and if necessary delete poor quality articles. Such is human nature. I don't think the language of the article was an issue, it was that the topic itself was not seen as notable. The Russian article is also unsourced. It would be helpful if you found sources for that.

I understand and sympathise with your frustration. What do you think about the suggestions I have made that you consult some pages that give help and advice on creating articles, and that you make yourself familiar with some of our policies and guidelines? We are continually looking at the issue of retention of new editors, and are looking at ways of helping editors to write articles that won't get deleted. We wish to encourage the sort of editors who are patient, collegiate, and follow guidelines rather than simply anyone who wants to edit. I would be interested to hear from you if you are the sort of editor we are looking for. It appears that you are willing to engage in discussion, and that you look at other articles for guidance. These are positive qualities.

From our discussion so far, and the links I have provided, do you feel you are the sort of person who can edit well at Wikipedia? And do you feel you know enough now to know why your article was deleted and what you have to do to ensure a new article you make doesn't get deleted in future? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the main problem is a source and references in articles. But it's only a problem of time to add some of them. If I'm not will create the article, then no one surely will not do it. My task is to write, the task of the community is to help with design and advice, and do it together. Isn't it? Dr.ON-fog (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It helps if you want me to see your comments to leave the comment on my talkpage, in the same way I leave my comments on your talkpage. I sometimes keep a copy of my comments on my page, so I have a complete record.

Your task is to follow Wikipedia guidelines. People who put words and other material on Wikipedia that do not follow our guidelines we are not short of, and clearing up after them is time consuming and counter productive. We would prefer people to either do it properly or not at all. I am willing to help anyone who is prepared to listen and follow guidelines. Are you that sort of person?

As regards your writing ability - I just looked again at Total Influence and the prose is not of a good standard. As English doesn't appear to be your first language and you don't have a good standard, it might be more useful and productive if you worked on your native language Wikipedia. Though we do have people from all manner of backgrounds working here who can and do contribute positively, so if you are prepared to follow guidelines you can be useful and enjoy yourself! I am not watching your page, so if you only reply here I am unlikely to see it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]