User talk:Loanfish

This is Loanfish'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: Loanfish (January 26)

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

This page duplicates the user page User:Loanfish and is not an article draft.

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 User:Loanfish/sandbox/Loanfish 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 User:Loanfish/sandbox/Loanfish, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Loanfish! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help me! Question regarding the content of user-pages.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Let me begin by stating that I am agreeable to the changes which have been made to my user-page, and I am not attempting to start an argument or make any form of dispute. I am merely asking for elaboration as a point of information.
An administrator, Billinghurst (talk · contribs), whom I am mentioning out of respect in the event they wish to respond personally, removed content from my user-page which they determined to be abuse. I want to make sure that I do not make this mistake again in the future, as it was not my intent, and abuse is something which I take very seriously. Re-reading what was removed from my user-page, I believe that I am misunderstanding the guidelines regarding notability and verifiability. Specifically:

I did not regard my local branch of the Socialist Party USA to be worthy of its own article, but I did think the details were relevant enough to enhance collaboration with other users on the site.
I included references to outside, official, sources in order to add verification for my statements. I was under the impression that this was required.

I do not understand how either of these things qualify as abuse.
Before authoring my user-page, I made a point to not only read the guidelines, but also to check the pages of other users in an effort to gain a more pragmatic understanding of what was appropriate. I understand that there are only so many administrators, and I recognize that it is possible I simply made an unfortunate selection of users from whom to take example. That being said, I find it unlikely that prolific editors are able to escape detection while decorating their user-pages with completely irrelevant memes.
While I am prepared to provide examples, I recognize that engaging in 'whataboutism' is not helpful, and would be missing the point. I only bring it up to highlight the source of my genuine confusion.
Thank you in advance!
--Loanfish (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User pages are to tell us a little about yourself in the context of being a user. User pages are not meant to be de facto article pages. I may have loquacious in my use of the word abuse, it was meant to more read as directive than accusatory. If I had wanted to take specific issue with it, I would have left a specific message here. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your prompt and succinct reply! I apologize for being needlessly defensive; I am still learning the ropes. I hope you have an excellent day! —Loanfish (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]