User talk:GatewayProcess

August 2024

Your recent editing history at High-IQ society shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (August 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jlwoodwa 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:International Society for Philosophical Enquiry 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.

jlwoodwa (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GatewayProcess! 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! jlwoodwa (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jlwoodwa! Thank you for reviewing this page entry so quickly. I really appreciate that!

Could you please help me with the source citations? I do understand and recognize the citation requirements, but for this particular topic of IQ/Intelligence organizations, they are such an esoteric and relatively unpopular topic that, sometimes, the only source(s) are the leaders of these organizations and their websites. I even referenced some existing similar pages, such as the page for "Intertel," another IQ/Intelligence organization, and some of those source links are expired pages. This seems to be the nature of this topic, because there isn't much information about them outside of their own organizations.

Could you please help me navigate through this issue? Should I list individuals from the organization as sources instead of repeating citations from their website? Unfortunately, even with their events and scholarships/awards, there is virtually no press coverage, either. It's difficult, but I can assure you that the organization does exist, has a non-profit tax designation, and it has been around since 1974!

Thank you! GatewayProcess (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some topics can be harder to find sources for than others, and the notability guidelines do sometimes account for this. For instance,

The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area.
— Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) § Multiple sources

However, this flexibility only goes so far. In my assessment, your draft has no sources that meet the primary criteria. Individuals from the organization would not be completely independent, so they wouldn't be suitable sources either. If you can't find significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, there just can't be an article about it. I don't doubt that the organization exists, but existence is not notability.

I don't mean to be harsh or discouraging here. Wikipedia has notability requirements for good reasons; in particular, all articles [must] rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. I do hope that you're able to find independent sources for your draft, but if you can't, I hope you can find another subject that you'd enjoy writing about. If the notability requirements seem daunting, I recommend the approach described in Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward: find suitable sources first, and then write an article based on them. If you're wondering whether a source is suitable or not, I'd be happy to give advice, and you can also ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Another approach is to find existing articles that you're interested in, and try to improve them. Once you've got some more experience editing Wikipedia, the requirements for new articles might make more sense. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]