User talk:FeelTheBernBaby

Welcome!

Hello, FeelTheBernBaby, 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 Wild Bunch Paintball Team, 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! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wild Bunch Paintball Team

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 Wild Bunch Paintball Team 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 person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, 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. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wild Bunch Paintball Team for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wild Bunch Paintball Team is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Bunch Paintball Team until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I understand that my created page is being considered for deletion. I do wish to contest the deletion for the following reasons. The sport of paintball was only created in 1981, so it is one of the most recently developed sports in the world. Scenario style play and tournaments are just in their infancy compared to other sports. Given that, the sport of paintball hardly receives any citable media coverage. In the case of the team in question, of the articles covering the team, they were in print publications that do not have online mirrors, so an online link is not possible. Complicating the matter further, all three of the national magazines that wrote about this team have since gone out of business.

In total, I researched for over a week to compile the sources that I was able to find. One additional challenge is that paintball websites routinely purge older records, or archive them after a period of time, so even online articles written about the team are not available 24 months after being shared online. More challenging still, coverage of events and awards earned often are replaced on the hosting field’s websites in a matter of weeks following the event, as the sites are hosted by small businesses with a limited space for data on their websites. Finding remaining links to awards that this team previously earned has been extremely challenging so far. It is understandable, given how new the sport of paintball is, to struggle to see the significance of the page in question, but, Planet Eclipse is an international company (makers of the best-selling high-end guns in the world), located in England, and they selected that team for full sponsorship. Most notably, they partnered with the team to create the first scenario-team edition paintball marker in the world. That first is enormous and extremely notable to the sport.

That said, please look at this as a developing article, one that will be further fortified to more clearly demonstrate the importance of its subject matter and support the existence of the page. Leaving the page up as a developing page will additionally offer the chance for many other Wikipedia editors to add content as they uncover it, further enriching the page.

I welcome any questions or concerns you may have as you make your decision. I ask for your leniency in allowing this page to remain and I thank you for your time. FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the current AfD debacle doesn't put you off

I know that it must be discouraging having an article that you clearly worked hard on, and that is your first real engagement with editing wikipedia, being dragged over the coals in AfD at the moment. I just wanted to say that I hope that this experience hasn't put you off, because wikipedia needs people who are willing to get stuck into research and content creation. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate it. I do not spend much time online, so this has been an eye-opening experience. I think the process would be easier if editors took the time to explain their rational as well as you have, that makes an enormous difference, especially with first time editors. In your response, I can see the reason, you wish to preserve the integrity of the site by ensuring that incoming additions are up to the standards that have been laid, and you have articulated the potential issues. In that, I can learn the standards by following the links and I can examine my evidence accordingly, so the experience has value.

One interesting byproduct, while I have yet to determine my future as an editor, this process has precluded many from ever participating in Wikipedia editing. I participate in a men's support group, and part of the program is that we talk about how to be better people. We make goals, and follow through. I shared with my group that I was going to try writing and talked about my research in preparation for the article. I was genuinely excited to try something new. That excitement is completely gone, and my fatigue showed at our next meeting. They are far more upset about this process than I am and not one of them will ever participate in editing (and their view of Wikipedia as a source has been diminished as well). Worse, not even I can convince them of the redeeming merits of the process, and they are sharing those negative opinions with anyone who listen. (I am not sure if you were aware of the attempts outside of the AfD to get the page deleted, but those left hot under the collar). This process took a potential positive, that could have enticed many other potential writers (there are some very successful people in the group) has, instead, turned all of them off.

I won't pretend that the experience has not been off putting for me either, it has, but, by the end, I likely will have enough information to write additional articles on the magazines referenced (an offshoot that was not part of the plan, I was originally hoping to write and edit more on/about other subjects). But, kind words and patient responses like yours do make a difference, so, thank you.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't previously spent much time looking at Articles for Deletion, and I think the thing which has most surprised me has been the lack of patience that some commenters seem to express. I can somewhat understand – there are a lot of articles created, and a lot of them are much more obviously wrong than yours, where with the new sources you have added it could (in my view as a newbie at AfD) go either way. Even so, Wikipedia is all about content creation, and it isn't that difficult to explain what the policies are and what people are looking for, especially as in some cases they can be quite obscure to people who don't know the language. I do think from my limited experience over on this side of things that AfD regulars could and should do more to encourage content creators, to explain the policies, and to tell them that they are wanted, even if a specific article isn't right for wikipedia. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It dawned on me why this process has irked me so much. It is the stark contrast of the majority of users responses on the AfD, the nomination to delete the page when it was four hours old, the lazy, three-word responses to simply delete the page without any actual analysis, and the disrespect demonstrated throughout by nearly all delete voters, save for yourself and Sam, compared to the support I have received from everyone with whom I have worked to research. The librarians I have worked with have been extremely pleasant, encouraging, and helpful. The library support staff at the University were patient, explained things (like how to work an overhead projector), and followed up when they found more information after I left. Even the manager, after working a nine-hour day and having to get special permissions to let me look at 20 years of sales figures, was still happy to help. Yet, here, in a "community" where there is no pay, and the writing level is often very poor, most have offered no support at all and have resorted to words and actions that plainly violate any understanding of "Don't Bite." It's a bewildering and unfortunate thing, made all the more so in that no seasoned editors have called them out on it, which is maybe the most disturbing part of the experience. The "adults" in the conversation seem few, and it appears the the children are fighting over who gets to hold the conch next. Thank you for being an adult, for your time, and explanations. Editors like you make the process better and are the hope for a user-driven creation like this.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new editor here can be a very daunting experience, for sure. There are many editors who only patrol the new pages that are created and tag them with delete tags, often within seconds of them being created. The truth of the matter is that most new pages are not the sort of pages that we want to keep as many are for shop owners who think their shop deserves a page, or brand new bands who haven't even started playing gigs that want a page, etc. I have been through this, but it does get better. As you gain experience, you get a feel for what articles will pass the test and what will not, so before you start writing an article, the first thing you should do is gather your references. If your subject hasn't been written about in mainstream newspapers, etc then maybe it doesn't qualify for an article. In this case, I would probably have advised you to not write an article about this team as, in all honesty, it doesn't really pass the notability test, but I have none the less voted to keep it because I think it would be the best result overall for Wikipedia. Robman94 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, that really means a lot to me. I will work hard to be worthy of your vote, thank you so much again. If you have suggestions on good articles in need of writing edits, that is where I want to focus next.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to find an area that interests you, in my case I like music and bands, so when I go to a concert, I usually check to see if there is a photo on the bands page, or if the musicians have pages, do they have photos, and if not, I take pics and add them. If a band that I like doesn't have a wiki page, I look to see if there is any coverage in newspapers, etc that I can use as justification for creating a page. Once you've been here a while, you get a feel for what will pass the test and what won't. All new pages get a quick review from someone looking for garbage, so if you create a page with no refs, or with non-RS type refs, your page will usually get flagged for deletion within minutes of being created (I think you know the feeling), so be sure to get the refs BEFORE creating the page, as that will get you past the first test. Then, at some point, someone will give the page a deeper review, so that's where the refs need to prove that the subject is notable enough for an article. Good luck, and feel free to come to me if you need advice. Robman94 (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Bunch Paintball Team

I recommend that you save a copy of this article in your own userspace (ie, User:FeelTheBernBaby/Wild Bunch Paintball Team) so that if it does get deleted, you can continue to work on it there and maybe eventually you can move it back into the mainspace. One thing that I did notice in the AfD discussions is that there were a lot of "keep" voters who have done little or no editing outside of this article and the AfD discussion. I hope these are not you posting under alternative accounts, because that's called WP:Sock puppetry and is a pretty serious offense over here. If those post are by friends of yours that you have encouraged to vote, that's called WP:Meat puppetry and is equally serious.

Regarding adding references to the article, there are many, many references at the moment where the vast majority don't come close to passing the WP:RS test (eg, Facebook pics, etc), so in the end they only serve the clutter things up and possibly hide some good references. A much better idea would be to only use a few references but make them count, in other words, just use the best ones. Your biggest hurdle at this point is notability, rather then verify-ability. You can add refs for verification later if it survives the AfD. Robman94 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there was a way to do that, I will try to look that up tomorrow on saving a copy in my userspace (which I did not know even existed, so thank you). Just as I was starting to think I at least knew a little bit about this whole editing thing, I find out there is so much more, like sock puppets and meat puppets. I would not even believe those are real things, save for the fact you left links. Unreal. I have more reading to do apparently. In preparing to write, I asked around, and no one I knew had ever edited before on here, so I had no one I could even ask. I have reached out to some of the other keep voters in hopes that they might have more links that spotlight the team, there are some news stories covering the charity games out there and library data suggested they were featured in a book on paintball, but I have yet to find the footage or a copy of the book, so I am hoping they may know more.

Thanks for your editing help and for taking the time to reach out, I appreciate it.FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FeelTheBernBaby, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Der yck C. 22:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]