User talk:Klok kaos

Klok kaos, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Klok kaos! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Klok kaos

A tag has been placed on User:Klok kaos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Klok kaos (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a user that has created one page, and this person has nominated me because I created a page about a well known author that wikipedia itself cites on multiple pages from edits that I didn't make, plus there are tons of sources I've included in the article, and they state that I'm not in line with wikipedia's goals...

This seems unfair in that they don't know my goals, and further, the only thing wrong with the article was that the citations aren't in line yet, which is something I was working on and just got an answer to at the tea house about how to do this effectively and it hasn't even been an hour since I got the response.

I believe this person may have some sort of personal issue that I don't understand as it's not feasible to ban someone immediately because they haven't finished putting citations in line yet with a brand new article that isn't a day old. As far as I know, wikipedia doesn't make it explicitly bannable not to have everything absolutely perfect when you're a new editor creating the first article you have for wikipedia, as I understand it, it's the community as the whole that is the strength to work as a team to create the best possible articles and to act as checks and balances to each other, and asking someone be banned for vague reasons that don't seem supported seems categorically against what I understand to be wikipedia's mission.

If anything they can, as a contributor, offer to help, which they didn't in the tea house when I asked for help (which was noted on the talk page just to avoid this exact kind of problem) and someone else did. I'll be adding the citations in line later today.

I think it's worth a reviewing mod having a discussion with this person about why they feel I'm not representing wikipedia correctly. The subjects of BDSM and alternative sexuality are not new to wikipedia, and again, this person is cited several times on wikipedia already, which is why I chose to do this article to start with, because wikipedia already says they are notable without my involvement.

I will also add that while I did interview the subject as part of the research to make sure that the information was thorough and to find out where best to find citations about them, I made sure to run the article through white smoke to ensure it met with neutral point of view and was offered without pretense. You'll note that the claims are all backed up in citations, they just aren't inline yet and they will be within a day, at which point I would challenge that same person to refute my extensive citations and show that they are categorically false.

I would further challenge anyone to match my research on this subject and prove I've inappropriately represented the topic, and if I am wrong, that's why wikipedia can be edited, so we can all make a better encyclopedia, yes? Please just look a little closer, and when you discover this person is overstepping bounds I'd like this speedy deletion removed please, because I'm doing my best to contribute in a field I know a lot about, and I mean a lot.

I happen to be a well respected subject matter expert on BDSM as the lead editor of BDSMwiki.info and am more than qualified to write on related subjects as well as being a decent researcher that managed to create citations for all claims in that article. I also happen to have an important book endorsed by many authors in the field of BDSM coming out later this year. The article just needs the citations put in line, which I'll be doing in the next 24 hours.

I don't know if the person is upset that the inline citations aren't added yet, or if they are upset about the subject matter, or both, but I don't believe that either of those are bannable offenses, and again, wikipedia already cites this person several times.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it's not out of line even if it is a bit unartful. The person should be given a chance to make it conform to WP:Guidelines. It certainly does not warrant a WP:Speedy deletion.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Klok kaos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Robert J. Rubel does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll notice, there are citations, lots of them, and they do credit all of the claims there. Further, Robert J Rubel, is already, before I got here, cited several times by wikipedia itself. I think if he can be cited as a subject matter expert on several articles, and has participated in substantive policy regarding the American historical political climate regarding the department of education, and written almost 20 books on a subject, and has a doctorate to show he knows how to research, plus I have citations for all claims, and his father's already on wikipedia, does that not somehow meet notability requirements? I would think the fact that wikipedia cites him as an expert on several subjects should qualify the article, yes? It's not about Point of View as far as I can tell, these are objective facts that are citable, one such source, again, being wikipedia itself.Klok kaos (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His father being Notable does not make him Notable. Also, WP has certain standards for wp:Reliable sources. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your references at Robert J. Rubel

With regard to Robert J. Rubel Wikipedia cannot reference itself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

It would be better if you deleted the links on your user page inasmuch as you are WP:Outing yourself, and also the Amazon link goes to a commercial site. Go to WP:User page design center/About you for some tips. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]