User talk:Vanos777

Welcome!

Hello, Vanos777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your change to the Medicine article

Hello, I'm Mathglot. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Medicine, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
One thing you might want to have a look at, are Wikipedia's policies on WP:Verifiability, and the recommended use of citations to reliable sources. The how-to page at Help:Footnotes is very useful, as well. Thanks, and once again: welcome! Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of discussion originally at User talk:Mathglot#The Medicine page change..

Hello,

The content changed is a misuse of diction, not content. The word "evolved" is not sourced either, nor does it mean what the article's paragraph desires it to mean. Therefore, this is a matter of word choice and grammar, not references. Vanos777 (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Mathglot § The Medicine page change.

Hello again, Vanos777,

I've moved the discussion here, so you'll see my response, and be able to refer to it later if you wish to; it will eventually get archived on my Talk page and will become hard to locate.

Regarding your recent comment on my Talk page (boxed material): I beg to differ with your characterization of your edit; a change from "evolved" to "scientifically proven" is not at all about word choice or grammar and changes the whole nature of the sentence, from one talking about the sweep of history, to one asserting a fact about the present nature of the art. And in fact, the word "evolved" is indeed sourced, by numerous references in the body of the article, which you can find starting in the #History section of the article, which is all about the evolution of medicine. The lead merely summarizes this information, and per WP:LEAD, as long as it is sourced in the body, the references do not need to be repeated in the lead summary.

I hope you will continue editing, and I just wanted to add a couple of tips for you as a new editor: the article about Medicine, or any article related to medicine, is a tough corner of the encyclopedia to learn the ropes, because as stringent as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are concerning WP:Verifiability in general for all articles, they are all the more stringent for articles related to medicine. See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. It's hard for a new editor to start with medical articles, as all but the strictest attention to sources will be met with reverts, which can be discouraging. If you still want to forge ahead anyway, that's fine, just be prepared.

The other tip, is about the difference between the WP:LEAD of an article, and the body. The lead is a summary, a "mini-version" of the article, if you will, and not a journalism-style introduction; so it often doesn't make sense to just change something in the lead. Normally the sequence is, change something in the body, then bring the lead into line. Still, there are times when it makes sense to change the lead, for example, when it did not properly summarize the body, or if it contains unique info not already in the body. Once again, it's harder for a new editor to get on board, by paying attention solely to the lead. I would recommend trying your changes to the body of whatever article interests you, and see how that is accepted, or not, by other editors first. Once you get a high rate of accepted edits, then you can start making concomitant changes to the lead. That would be my advice, but it's your choice. Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mac Ewart (August 24)

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

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.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

not yet notable

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:Mac Ewart 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:Mac Ewart, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vanos777! 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! DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mac Ewart

Hello, Vanos777. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mac Ewart, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mac Ewart

Hello, Vanos777. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mac Ewart".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mac Ewart

Hello, Vanos777. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mac Ewart".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]