User talk:Henrythompson
|
Ways to improve Landon Whitt
[edit]Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Henrythompson, thanks for creating Landon Whitt!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. You've put an awful lot of work into creating this new article. Thank you. However, I'm afraid I'm struggling to understand what it is that makes Landon Whitt sufficiently significant to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sometimes 'less is more', and it would be good if you considered focussing first on reliable third party sources that demonstrate something noteworthy about him. I think this needs doing quite quickly before another edits puts your article forward for deletion. I'm sure this isn't what you want to hear, but I hope it helps. Oh, and the page does not yet have any WP:Categories added.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Nick Moyes (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. My goal was to highlight and connect this character with adjustment disorder, it has been a growing concern as it it commonly used in the military as a loop hole to get men and women out of service. I felt it might be a way to open up discussions and point to existing cases. Im having trouble finding online sources for his case.. Ive have legal papers that ive pulled from the inspector general of the us air force and how his particular case went all the way to the pentagon but i don't have anything online... would it make sense to load these files onto a web page and link them?? i may be heading the wrong direction on this.
- Hello Henry. I did notice that another page patroller (i.e. editors who check new pages) also thought your article is of concern regarding Whitt's 'notability' for Wikipedia. He may have Adjustment disorder but, unless he has personally been the subject of significant newsworthy reporting (please see WP:RELIABLE), this really isn't the place to try to open a discussion by means of an article on such a person. I might, however, suggest you should look at the Adjustment disorder page and see how you can improve that in a neutral manner. (It is flagged as needing urgent improvement!) This means putting both sides of the story on the medical condition, and this could be quite a challenge for any new editor not to introduce personal bias. I'm really sorry about this, but to be frank, Wikipedia isn't a place to be used to raise issues like this, but is simply to pull together existing third party sources to neutrally demonstrate a particular topic in an encyclopaedic manner.
- I think, as you suggest, that you should indeed place what material you have on a blog or webpage, as well as copying over what you've created on Landon Whitt before it potentially gets put forward for deletion (i.e. so you don't lose your hard work). It really is very common for a new editor to have their first article or two declined (it's happened to me, too), and if this happens this is no reflection on you or your abilities whatsoever. And I certainly hope it doesn't put you off because you have clearly grasped the basics of editing and creating Wikipedia content. Did you know there's a process called Articles for Creation which allows you to draft an article before finally submitting it for peer review and feedback?. It can sometimes be a hard hoop to jump through, but you do get feedback and a chance to work further on your article before resubmitting it. So it's far less painful than suddenly finding all your hard work removed. I do hope this constructive criticism has been helpful - I do have to act as a neutral editor, but I believe all now content creators like you should be encouraged and given the chance to improve their articles if at all possible. Regards from the UK on a potentially momentous and, as yet, undecided election night, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I did see that the very heart of the controversy surrounding G4S was removed quite quickly. In fact it was removed from landon whitt and from G4S page. Im beginning to see that perhaps wikipedia is filled with more than just contributors, perhaps individuals working for these companies may be hired to patrol wikipedia? does that happen? my concern with uploading factual data not already living on the web is lots of these pages on wikipedia provide a narrative for the references and unless that reference is a transcript of the actual life there has to be some original content generated by the contributor himself, either by word of mouth or by personal testimony. And if there is original content on the wikipedia page it will be enterally able to be scrutinized and modified to whoever has the biggest pull. So.. im at a loss.. oh and no worries all the content on the page is backed up my system.. but it looks like i'm not going to need it anyways.
- Hi again Henry. I can see that the reason the content was removed by @Ronz: was purely because it was unsubstantiated statements about a living person and about a company where no evidence was presented to support each statement. Whilst there are very occasionally people who do, as you suggest, edit on behalf of companies, there is absolutely no conspiracy here, or collusion my such people. You simply broke one of the most basic rules about not making unfounded statements about living people, or allegations that you might believe but can't prove. (see WP:BLP and WP:RS for guidelines on this) You're free to check my user page out and see I have nothing to do with the subject, but, as an editor who has the best interests of Wikipedia and its reputation at heart, I too cannot allow that content to remain. If you can cite reliable sources (whether in print, book or online) to support such statements, you are free to leave them in (provided they are preented in a neutral or factial manner. Ronx did leave an explanation in the edit summary to explain why it was removed, and it was quite valid for him/her to have done so. Please also be aware that it is regarded as very bad form to quickly revert such an edit. In fact there's a policy on not enagaging in so-called edit-warring which, if not followed carewfully, can result in the offending editor being temporarily blocked from further editing. Finally, word of mouth statements, or personal testimony are not regarded as reliable sources (see WP:RS). Things you place on Wikipedia must already be publicly available in reliable sources, and artciles can't be used for promoting camapigns or original research into issues. (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX) Do please sign all your replies so everyone can see who has written them, and when. You just have to type four tildes (~), like this:
~~~~The system will then convert this to your name, date and time. Regards: Nick Moyes (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thanks Ronz, I appreciate you and all of the other contributors that are working together to create a trustworthy expression on the web. Its truly through multiple human collaboration that we gain society. I aim to please, I actually learned alot in the wiki writing style from Richard Brandsons site. There are several sentences that the writers bridge gaps in referenced data by providing their own commentary. I almost feel this is necessary in order to create a legible flow to the material and to keep the average reader able to understand the history that is being reported. just some ideas. thanks again Henrythompson (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC) - henry
Landon Whitt
[edit]
Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. I would recommend you use your sandbox to draft up this article as at present it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Deb (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)