User talk:Cwontonsoup

This is Cwontonsoup's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Data Colada (June 28)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Data Colada and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cwontonsoup! Having an article draft 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! Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest, the fact that this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_end_of_Twitter) is a Wikipedia article but my submission is declined, is utterly ridiculous. There is clearly no consistent editorial standard. As for the article being imperfect - it is not supposed to be. Later edits will improve it. That is how Wikipedia beats the Britannia Encyclopedia. Cwontonsoup (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this draft back in June! As there is now extensive new media coverage that makes the subject easily clear Wikipedia's notability hurdles , I have just expanded the article and moved it to mainspace: Data Colada. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Dan Ariely into Draft:Data Colada. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Data Colada

On 14 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Data Colada, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Data Colada bloggers drew attention to the replication crisis by exposing faulty social science research? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Data Colada. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Data Colada), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]