User talk:Taysavestheday

September 2018

Hello, I'm Plaba123. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Haunted attraction (simulated)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Plaba123 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on various aspects of your editing

Hello, Taysavestheday. I see that you have made a number of edits over the last couple of months, and several editors have clearly disagreed with your editing, but apart from the one message above from Plaba123 and some very brief edit summaries none of them have tried to explain to you what they consider to be the problems. Also, even the one message you have had was not very helpful, merely telling you that your edit "did not appear constructive" but making no attempt to explain why. It would have been more helpful if the editors concerned had given you clearer explanations of why they disagreed with your editing, but it may be of some help to you if I give you a few comments about your editing and how it fits in to Wikipedia’s accepted standards.

A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and must not provide a writer’s judgement, analysis, or opinions.
Editing must not be such as to seem to promote or advertise anything. Some of your editing looks very much like that. That applies particularly, but not exclusively, to a good deal of your editing which links repeatedly to a particular web site, looking as though your purpose may be to attract readers to that web site.
Your repeatedly linking to one web site may or may not also be intended to serve the purpose of search engine optimisation. If that is so, then it is futile, as Wikipedia uses "no follow" tags, meaning that linking from a Wikipedia article will have no effect on any of the major search engines. Obviously, if you don’t have that intention then that is irrelevant, but I thought I would let you know just in case.
I see that you have repeatedly edited the article Haunted attraction (simulated) in ways that have restored either the same or essentially similar content to that which other editors had removed, on at least two occasions exactly reversing other editors’ edits. Since three different editors have reverted edits of yours on that article and one has posted the message above, you must have realised that there is a consensus that your editing is not helpful. If you believe there are good reasons why your preferred version is preferable, and all the other editors are mistaken, then explain your reasons on the article’s talk page, Talk:Haunted attraction (simulated), and be willing to discuss the issues involved, with a view to attempting to reach agreement. Repeatedly reverting what other editors have done to the same or essentially similar version, known as edit-warring, is not helpful, and Wikipedia administrators can block anyone who persistently does so from editing, to prevent disruption.
The extent of your editing relating to a particular web site makes it look as though you may have a personal connection to that web site. Is that so? If it is then you must say so before you do any more editing that relates in any way to that web site, and you should also read the guideline on conflict of interest.
Another editor has stated that the web site you have linked to has plagiarised content from another source. I have not checked whether that is so, but if it is then you must not link to the site. More importantly still, if there is not only plagiarism but copyright infringement on that site then it is absolutely essential that you do not link to it. Any editor who continues to link to a site that infringes copyright after being informed of the problem is likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator.
Be careful that edit summaries give an clear indication of the nature of what the corresponding edits do. In this edit you gave the edit summary "Made the section less promotional", but in fact the edit did nothing whatever to make anything in the article less promotional, and indeed added content which looks rather like making it more promotional. In the context of your previous editing it seems likely that you meant that you thought the promotional content you were adding might seem less promotional than earlier versions you had posted, but you can’t expect every editor who sees an edit summary to search through previous editing history to find enough context to understand what it means. Anyone reading that edit summary and seeing what the edit did might think you were deliberately trying to hide what you were really doing; I am sure you weren’t doing that, but you should be careful to avoid giving that impression.

I hope these comments may be of some help to you. Please feel welcome to ask me if you need any clarification of any of what I have said. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Haunting.net (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JamesBWatson was:

There is no evidence, either in this draft or anywhere that my searches have turned up, that this web site comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines; if it doesn't, then no article about it would be suitable for Wikipedia. In addition, this draft reads more like promotion of the web site than like detached neutral recording of facts.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Haunting.net and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Haunting.net, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Taysavestheday! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Haunting.net

Hello, Taysavestheday. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Haunting.net".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]