User talk:Giffas

Welcome!

Hello, Giffas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Portal 2: The cake is a lie, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Portal 2: The cake is a lie

A tag has been placed on Portal 2: The cake is a lie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portal 2: The cake is a lie

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Portal 2: The cake is a lie, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Portal 2: The cake is a lie, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Talk:Portal 2: The cake is a lie constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. –Capricorn42 (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was not spam!!!

I was defending my article!!

Don't remove edits if you don't know what spam is!!!

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Portal 2: The cake is a lie. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be getting all bent out of shape over this

I hope this will help you:

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

This page in a nutshell: This is an essay, intended for new editors, to help them to understand things at Wikipedia

If you are to have an enjoyable time here adding articles and editing articles you need to understand how the place works. It doesn't matter about how it, perhaps, ought to work, nor about how you want it to work. What matters is how it works. Once you understand this then you will be able to add new articles to your heart's content, confident that they will survive.

I'm afraid this means a bit of reading for you. Look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not first. Look especially at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Once you understand this then you have pretty much the entire trick to it.

It means that just adding a new article is insufficient. Wikipedia does require some work from its contributors. Creating an article with minimal information, providing no other citations, and doing no other work is doomed to failure.

To create a successful article there really should be:

notability of the topic that is the subject matter of the article. This is non-negotiable. Read Wikipedia:Notability.
citations to the topic from reliable sources. Check the definition of reliable sources, and learn how to use the CITE facilities in the edit window. You can add a parameter |quote= to the cite before you save it and use a relevant snippet of the item you are citing, too.
- We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42
- For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS
Do not forget a section for References ==References== and put in it the text {{Reflist}} to receive the things you cite.
wikilinks to other articles. An article that is a dead end is sometimes reasonable, but usually there are useful places to link to. Check that the destination is the article you expect, do not just create a wikilink and hope for the best.
wikilinks to the article you have created from other articles. This means that the article is not "orphaned" and that others will find it.
inclusion of the article in the most relevant category (or categories). Read Wikipedia:Categorization.
If a short article, deploy {{Stub}} in the article, or, better, deploy the best possible stub tag. Read Wikipedia:Stub.

One very important thing is to "let go" once you have posted the article. The only time it is "yours" is when it's in your head. The moment you place it on Wikipedia it becomes "everyone's" Letting go of your baby is hard. Read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. On Wikipedia we don't mother articles, we father them. Or we do that if we want to stay sane. Don't wrap the article in warm towels, send it out to graze its knees! Edit it further, yes, of course, but you have released your child to go and play outside. Watch it from a distance and just correct things when absolutely essential.

Please never, not ever, confuse the truth that you know and are 100% certain about with verifiable facts. Even if you know{{OR}} the colour black to be{{cn}} black, unless there is a citation for it, the obvious{{cn}} truth that it really{{cn}} is black still has no place here. Indeed a statement that Black is White^[1]^[2]^[3] with a citation in a reliable source that this is so takes absolute precedence over the truth, Wikipedia is based upon citations and citable, verifiable facts, not upon truth, because it is an encyclopaedia, and, rightly or wrongly, that is what an encyclopaedia does.

Useful vs Notable

I know you will appreciate the distinction. Very many celebrities are notable, almost none are useful. The reverse is true of many tools.

The problem Wikipedia has with things which are useful is that it is not a compendium of useful things. Indeed many notable things (celebrities!) are wholly useless, but they have articles because they pass WP:GNG.

There is a trick to getting articles accepted in such a manner that they reman here. The trick is to demonstrate WP:N, never usefulness. Sometimes that means cutting a lot of genuinely useful material from an article to concentrate only on the items that make it notable. For genuinely useful things notability can be found, usually, given time.

We expect people to go to the source for things that are useful but not notable. That also means that an article about Foo has to concentrate on the notability of Foo, with the assumption that folk will be inspired to visit foo.com to discover the heady delights of rolling about in Foo.

How to plan

It's pretty formulaic, a process:

Find references, good ones. WP:42 ones
Select the facts from those references that you wish to use (you will cite the facts with those references WP:CITE is your friend here)
Create a storyboard from those facts
Using WP:AFC use the article wizard to start a new draft. It is not mandatory, but it guides you
Write very neutral, flat prose, citing the references for the facts
Double check your work and submit the draft when happy
While awaiting review, continue to enhance your work

Note that an inability to find references means the draft is unlikely to be accepted (0.9 probability). We want new articles here, and we try hard to maintain high standards.

In conclusion

Doing these things, even imperfectly, means that others are likely to be kindly disposed to the new article, and, if it is about a notable topic, likely to expand it. Even if they do not expand it the survival of the article is enhanced because it is likely to be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This is because it is a useful article since it gives information. It is insufficient for an article simply to exist, it must have value.

Things "ought to have articles here." I hope you understand that every editor here thinks that things ought to have articles here, too, even those who propose articles for deletion. There must, though, be initial article quality. That initial article may be very short, but, even in extreme brevity, must meet the guidelines, and must have the building blocks from which it may be expanded alongside genuine and verifiable notability. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If those building blocks are not present and the article is not about a notable thing, and has no verifiability from reliable sources then the article has no value to anyone, however well-written it is. Read Wikipedia:No original research.

I truly hope this helps you understand how to start to create good articles and enjoy being here. You may have had a baptism of fire and learnt that it is not a gentle place. Working within the rules can be rewarding. Trying to push the envelope always fails.

Apart from taking constructive comments on board and learning your trade here, realise that this is a complex place, and not always very kind. The only thing to take personally here is praise. Everything else is fluff and flummery and background noise.

These are my thoughts. You may disagree, so may others. That's fine, that is part of what Wikipedia creates - we work together. If you disagree, please let me know by using User talk:Timtrent/A good article and we can discuss it.

References

^ "Circle of Sophistry". National Federation of the Blind. Retrieved 2013-11-18. White, as everyone knows, is the absence of color, and black is the opposite. Yet, what we call black reflects no light waves at all and is, thus, the absence of color—while what we call white (again to quote the dictionary) is: "The reflection of all the rays that produce color." Therefore, the logic is inevitable: black is white, and white is black.
^ "Black-Is-White - Trailer - Cast - Showtimes". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-11-18.
^ McCutcheon, George Barr. Black is white. Open Library. OL 7113506M. Retrieved 2013-11-18.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with Portal 2: The cake is a lie, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no reason to delete my article. Search on google for the proof for gods sake.

Please actually slow down, stop objecting so much, and read about how Wikipedia works. What you are doing so far does not help you nor the article you created. Please note that it is not your article but it is Wikipedia's article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked Google. None of the results come fromreliable sources, thus the article cannot stay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[sophistry-1] "Circle of Sophistry". National Federation of the Blind. Retrieved 2013-11-18. White, as everyone knows, is the absence of color, and black is the opposite. Yet, what we call black reflects no light waves at all and is, thus, the absence of color—while what we call white (again to quote the dictionary) is: "The reflection of all the rays that produce color." Therefore, the logic is inevitable: black is white, and white is black.

[nyt-2] "Black-Is-White - Trailer - Cast - Showtimes". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-11-18.

[McCutcheon1900-3] McCutcheon, George Barr. Black is white. Open Library. OL 7113506M. Retrieved 2013-11-18.

[1]

[2]

[3]