Jump to content

User talk:MiracleCloud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A belated welcome!

[edit]
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MiracleCloud! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Missvain (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MiracleCloud, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi MiracleCloud! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.
-Liancetalk/contribs 20:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reviewing my article and telling me what you thought wasn't working in it. As you suggested, I added a lead section (and while I was at it, divided the article into sections). I still don't know why it was labelled as an article that looks like an essay with a non-neutral POV and without reliable sources: the sources I cited and listed are all official websites or handbooks published by official institutions. And what I wrote inside the article is just a summary of all the information I found in those websites/handbooks - crammed together. If you could further explain or give more specific examples of where I did wrong, I would be extremely grateful. Maybe, if you also feel like giving a look a the new version and see if I understood your suggestion correctly... MiracleCloud (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Environmental-friendly Production (South Korea) 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/Environmental-friendly Production (South Korea) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation on why you decided for deletion. I have no idea how to start the debate, since I'm new to Wikipedia... I also don't know why it says I have not enough second sources, when I have more than one link (of official organisations like OECD and UN) referencing and talking about that topic. I guess you are talking about specific paragraphs, and if so I would be grateful if you could point out which ones. I also noticed some links were wrong in some references and fixed them thanks to your comment. However, I am confused as to why only one (it's just one) self-published handbook is considered an exaggerate use of self-published sources, when the remaining ones are secondary and only a few data are not further explained in there. I moved the article back to draft, is it okay or was it a wrong move? I wanted to keep editing to better fit the standards you have mentioned, but since that will take a while I don't want the page to be up and wrong. Please, let me know how I should act in order not to violate any more Wikipedia rules. MiracleCloud (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Environmental-friendly Production (South Korea). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, MiracleCloud. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Environmental-friendly Production (South Korea), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MiracleCloud. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Environmental-friendly Production".

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! 16:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]