User talk:SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES

This is SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES'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: Alternative ideas for the pattern of magnetic field (May 15)

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 Johannes Maximilian was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia is not a place for promoting one's own theories. Wikipedia depicts what is believed to be established knowledge. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is what Wikipedia itself says:

...We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia...

According to this, you have denied factually backed argument to exist and used your personal opinion for rejection... SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES! 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! Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johannes!

To be honest, I was surprised by your quick rejection. The thing is, Wikipedia even has articles about Flat Earth theory, simply because it exists. When presenting this theory of mine, which I understand I have a right to do, I clearly stated that this is alternative view which is based on provided facts and arguments. Clearly, if Flat Earth theory has the right to be on Wikipedia, I see no reason why this idea can not. Also, I so strongly disagree with the reason of your rejection that I will go as far as I have to with complaints till it will be accepted. I could understand that the idea provided had no evidence to support it, but here that is not the case. So, you claim that Wikipedia only publish officially established ideas... Every knows that this is not true. Wikipedia also has pages about historical blunders of scientists when they thought the earth was at the center of the universe and everything was rotating around of it. I truly cannot see how you could use this reason for rejection. It doesn't even matter if the idea was wrong. The truth comes out of discussions and conflicting views. Without that there is no advances in understanding of the nature of reality. What are you going to say if this will turn out to be the correct depiction of the magnetic field? There is a reason why the title of the article says - Alternatvie ideas for the pattern of magnetic field. SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a prohibition against original research (WP:NOR). Therefore, your draft cannot be accepted. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Alternative ideas for the pattern of magnetic field

Hello, SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Alternative ideas for the pattern of magnetic field, 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) 04:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Alternative ideas for the pattern of magnetic field

Hello, SCIENCE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT ABOUT CLAIMS OF AUTHORITIES. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Alternative ideas for the pattern of magnetic field".

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!} 18:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]