Jump to content

User talk:RSquier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, RSquier, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Turning Point USA, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 13:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Turning Point USA

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Turning Point USA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. KH-1 (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Turning Point USA (October 11)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sam Sailor was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
-- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! RSquier, 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! -- Sam Sailor Talk! 09:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Turning Point USA (October 25)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by FoCuSandLeArN was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Turning Point USA (April 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Still questionable for solid independent notability, would still need any additional amount of in-depth third-party news sources overall, but no press releases or trivial passing mentions.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Tpusa.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Tpusa.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Turning Point USA (May 20)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Omni Flames was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Omni Flames let's talk about it 23:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Tpusa.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Turning Point USA (July 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The headings are obviously biased. "Who is Charlie Kirk" is completely the wrong idea of how to write headings for WP articles.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Tseung Kwan O (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Turning Point USA has been accepted

[edit]
Turning Point USA, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Daniel kenneth (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Per your request I've moved your article to User:RSquier/Hypeline News in order to allow you to continue working on it. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Anti-fascism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest re Turning Point USA

[edit]

Information icon Hello, RSquier. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Turning Point USA, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to respond to this. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for taking so long to respond, as I only logon to Wikipedia/check it very rarely. I can see where it may appear as if I have a conflict of interest, however, the closest I would have is an interest in the organization. I do not work for TPUSA, I am not even an official member of my local chapter, although I do get emails about campus events. I do not believe there is a COI, and if you refer to the talk page of TPUSA, you can see that I essentially retracted the proposition to remove the section (I proposed it in a well meaning way, however, upon further investigation, I was glad I just proposed it, and never deleted it myself).RSquier (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I did use to write articles for the then Hypeline News (now turning point news), however, I did this voluntarily, and I eventually left the writing team. This was before they wrote almost all politically, and reported more on National news. RSquier (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea to avoid articles about subjects with which you have off-wiki connections. Even if you personally feel you can edit Turning Point USA without bias, you discredit the article to some extent by your participation--don't you think readers would be concerned to discover that the article was originally created and largely written by someone who used to write articles for the organization's newsletter? As the COI guidelines suggest, you're welcome to continue contributing at the talk page and your input will be welcomed. Btw I hope this isn't you. Please review WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT if you're unfamiliar with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not me. I see how users may take issue with me being a writer for the then Hypeline News, as well as being the creator for the page. I actually started the page as I saw TPUSA as a rising organization, and now the page is probably only about 20% alike to the original one I wrote, which is actually a great thing. Most edits that I have written since the 6 months after the page was published were minor (changing dead links to live ones that state similar facts, adding citations, etc. The main reason why this COI investigation surfaced was actually because I wrote in the talk page to ask if a certain section should be omitted, and I did not just delete it. I thought it was unreliable because there was only one article that stated anything substantial tat I could find, until I realized some of them were subscription only ones where I could not read the full story. I will stick to the talk page before any major edits (adding or deleting information). Do I need to take to the talk page before adding sources to already written material? RSquier (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be best, thanks. And I do appreciate your civility and willingness to discuss. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RSquier: you have been given incorrect information about WP:COI. WP:EXTERNALREL says "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense (empl. mine)." If you are no longer a volunteer writer at Turning Point, and you have no connections to employees there, then you no longer have a relationship. No relationship = no COI. That's the "common sense" part of the policy. This means that you are able to edit the Turning Point article just like any other editor without a scarlet letter on your chest.

Are you going to create another article? I'd like to suggest that you consider nominating it for DYK. Check this out "DYK For Newbies." If you have any questions you can get answers here.– Lionel(talk) 08:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a mainstream interpretation of WP:COI, and certainly not how most folks apply it at WP:COIN. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

[edit]
  • Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
  • "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
  • We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
  • Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
  • Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RSquier: you can ignore those links User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV and Wikipedia:ABIAS that Tgeorgescu dropped on your talkpage. You see, contrary to the not-so-accurate section header those are not policies and guidelines. Those are essays. Essays are not worth the paper they're written on. See what I did there lol. This is the essay that you need to read: Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy haha. – Lionel(talk) 09:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RSquier&oldid=1089570106"