User talk:Raymondr1877

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kenneth R. Rockwell (July 13)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kenneth R. Rockwell 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 Draft:Kenneth R. Rockwell, 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.

--TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Raymondr1877! 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! --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kenneth R. Rockwell (July 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Loksmythe were:  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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kenneth R. Rockwell 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 Draft:Kenneth R. Rockwell, 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.

Loksmythe (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kenneth R. Rockwell (July 13)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Jovanmilic97 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: A forum post and the subject's official website aren't going to establish notability per WP:BIO.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Rockwell (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SamHolt6 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ken Rockwell 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 Draft:Ken Rockwell, 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.

SamHolt6 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Rockwell (July 14)

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

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ken Rockwell 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 Draft:Ken Rockwell, 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.

~ Amkgp 💬 15:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Rockwell (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: 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 Draft:Ken Rockwell 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 Draft:Ken Rockwell, 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ken Rockwell (July 14)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Dr. Kadzi was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Unfortunately this person still does not meet notability guidelines, there are not enough reliable independent sources that give K Rockwell significant coverage. You also have had Draft:Kenneth_R._Rockwell rejected and have made this version without consulting the teahouse or asking for help. Not to mention, this page has already been deleted twice for not being notable (I accept this was years ago, but this person still is not notable enough for an article). Sorry.

  Kadzi   (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Raymondr1877, 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 Draft:Ken Rockwell, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• How to write a great article
• The perfect article

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 ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!    Kadzi   (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on User_talk:Dr. Kadzi were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "Add topic" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. I will answer your query soon however please be careful when editing my talk page   Kadzi   (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Query regarding Ken Rockwell

thank you for messaging me regarding your rejected draft of Ken Rockwell

I appreciate that you spent your time creating the article, however this subject has not shown to be notable at the time.

The reason for that is that you have not included enough reliable sources that are independent of the source, and show that he has significant coverage. Please study Wikipedia:Notability to understand what this is.

I know that you feel that they are notable, however the sources at the moment simply do not show that.   Kadzi   (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. Kadzi: Hi, thank you for your answer, why is a print article of an established magazine (which is not an interview), a TV broadcast and a radio broadcast not enough as sources for an wikipedia article about a "prototype" "influencer", meaning for someone who exists only inside of the internet?

I did read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_23#Ken_Rockwell

but here non of the independent professional publications I put as references are mentioned...

I'm not the same author, I'm also not connected to the subject of the article, I'm seeing the 'influencer' aspect in its historical context and think this Wikipedia entry is missing Raymondr1877 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate drafts

I don't know what your purpose was in creating more than one copy of the same content in different draft pages, but:

1. Doing so serves no useful purpose, and can cause various problems, such as making it difficult for editors to keep track of changes.
2. It is likely to result in reviewers reviewing a draft without being aware of previous reviews, which can lead to their wasting time duplicating work.
3. It runs the risk that editors may get the impression that you are deliberately and dishonestly trying to be obstructive by hiding the past history of a draft from new reviewers. If people do get that impression you are likely to be blocked from editing.

I shall therefore merge the histories of the two drafts. Since the text of the second draft when it was created was identical to that of the first draft when you abandonned it, the second is effectively a continuation of the history of the first, so merging should cause no problems. JBW (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: hello, thank you for the info, can you delete Draft:Kenneth R. Rockwell please? This was the wrong name (I did not find a proper proof of the name and I did not find a way to change the name of the article,,,) thanks... the second draft is the right one Raymondr1877 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it better not to delete one of the drafts, because doing so would hide the history of the various reviews and comments. Merging the histories is much more suitable. Also, I don't think the page qualifies for any of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, so deleting without a deletion discussion would put me at risk of criticism for going against policy. JBW (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: thank you, if it is clear that Kenneth R. Rockwell was the article with the wrong name (meaning the proof of this name would be to complicated...) and Ken Rockwell is the same article with the right name, but also with newer edits it is ok, thanks Raymondr1877 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Advice on editing

When I first started editing Wikipedia, I found a number of policies and guidelines that seemed to me to be at best bewildering, and at worst stupid. By the time I had been editing for a while, I realised that, no matter how strange they might seem to a newcomer, there were intelligent reasons behind all of those policies and guidelines. Of course that doesn't mean that I agreed with them all; after 14 years as an editor, including 10 years as an administrator, there are some aspects of some policies that I don't agree with, but even in those cases, I can see that there are logical reasons why other people support them.

Seven different experienced reviewers have all independently decided that you draft does not establish notability of its subject by Wikipedia's standards. Another very experienced editor, who has made well over 3000 edits, has advised you at the articles for creation help desk that it does not do so. Perhaps it's time to accept that those experienced editors know what Wikipedia's standards are, and it is highly unlikely that a unanimous opinion shared by all eight of them misrepresents Wikipedia's standards. If your draft were posted now as an article, it would (not "might", but "would") be nominated for deletion at a deletion discussion, and I would not place any money on its chance of surviving.

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.

I don't know how useful you will find that advice, if at all, but I suggest you at least consider it. JBW (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: thank your for your advice, I'm sure the editors who rejected my entry did many edits in Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if they actually checked the sources I put as reference, meaning if they did read the print magazine article or if they just guessed ... Raymondr1877 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can't say what they have or haven't checked, but I have seen the article. Before I say anything else, I will say that reliability of sources is one of the guidelines that I mentioned above, where I don't entirely agree with the consensus. Anything I say, therefore, is an attempt to assess how the article would be seen by most participants in deletion discussions, not a statement of my personal opinion. I'm afraid I have seen articles like that totally shot down in deletion discussions, for several reasons, such as the fact that it purports to tell the reader what Rockwell says about himself, rather than being an independent assessment. I did find numerous other sources, none of which looked terribly good in Wikipedia terms. There may be something suitable there, but years of experience have taught me that on the whole if a few minutes' search don't turn much up then there probably isn't much to turn up. In my early days of editing I sometimes used to search through dozens of pages of search page results looking for sources, but I just found it was a waste of time, because any subject which satisfies the standards needed will have significant coverage in the first page or two.

If you are interested in becoming a Wikipedia editor, and Ken Rockwell just happened to be the first topic you chose to write about, then it's really very unfortunate that you happened to start off editing in a way that has led to such a negative experience, which must be very frustrating. If that is so, I urge you once again to take the advice I gave above about starting small.

If, on the other hand, your only interest in editing is telling the world about Ken Rockwell, then probably you would be better off doing so somewhere other than Wikipedia, as you are likely to meet more frustration if you persist here. Also, if you have a high opinion of Rockwell, and wish to present him in a favourable light, you should bear in mind that if you ever do succeed in getting an article about him onto Wikipedia, it will not stay the way you want it to. Other editors will add to it, and articles such as Why Ken Rockwell is bad for photography, by Michael Muraz, are likely to get just as much coverage as ones like the one you have cited from "Better Photography". JBW (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wrote my comment above about the thing by Michael Muraz on the basis of a very quick glance at it, which was not a good thing to do. I have now looked at it more closely, and I see it is a blog post, not a reliably published article, and it won't be suitable as a source for a Wikipedia article. However, even though I now realise I chose a bad example, the basic principle is true: editors who create articles with the intention of presenting a good impression of someone or something they admire have a good likelihood of finding that the article they create come to say a lot of things of a quite different nature. JBW (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW:thank you for your reply, I chose this topic because 1) it was missing on Wikipedia (I wanted to add something which is missing this was my main motivation) 2) I know already some stuff about the subject, I did read texts by and about him (which is better than to learn everything while writing the article, right?) 3) I wanted to link it with the quite new term 'influencer' and I think (looking back) that the subject is a very good example, I think he was one of the first very successful 'influencers' (this does not mean that I think that the term 'influencer' is a good term or that Ken Rockwell knows or even likes this term (I don't think so), but I think he is a good example for a more historical approach to this term (like who was there in the beginning, how did it all start...) Raymondr1877 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW:I'm still learning how Wikipedia works (I know more about the GNU philosophy than about Wikipedia, I was thinking the GNU philosophy and Wikipedia are relative...), but also I'm still learning how the term 'influencer' works, e.g. I found out that some people think influencers already existed in the middle ages and before (https://www.gatsby.ai/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-influencer)... therefore I have to update my article to specify... BUT: on top of the article is this big STOP sign, I mean how can I find the "truth" if somebody is blocking me from improving my article, isn't this against the philosophy of Wikipedia? Raymondr1877 (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)