User talk:Sgerbic/Archives/2016/05

James Corbett

Hi there. We connected a couple months back and you fixed Paul Haggis' atheist status. (I've been less active lately as I'm working on a documentary about the establishment illusions of faith and the state that enslave and destroy Earth. A sequel documentary will pitch the movie screenplay pitch I'd mentioned before. First the fundamental facts, then the edutainment feature film to inspire a revolution of the mind and mass awakening if it's not already too late.) One of my favorite sources for comprehensive insight and counter propaganda is James Corbett (journalist) who is popular on YouTube but not listed. Because I couldn't figure out a short summary for this complex fellow, I wrote a short paragraph on the disambiguation page for James Corbett hoping it might be a good start for a page but discovered that someone removed it. I put it back. I hope I was correct. Thanks for your time. JasonCarswell (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jason. I don't see a reason left for what you did, but there is a comment left for the James Corbett (sportswriter) that seems appropriate. That is, if you have the citations for a page for the sportswriter, then create the Wikipedia page using that citation. This is my advice to you also. If there is enough evidence to prove that the journalist should have a WP page, then create the WP page. This disambiguation page is not the place to start, it is the place to edit last, once the WP page has been created. WP editors generally do not like people giving them a list of things to do, and then walking away. Also if you make a edit, and then it is removed, then don't put it back. If it happens three times then it is an edit war and not cool. It might leave you banned and it will for sure harm any edits you might try to do in the future. The correct thing to do is to discuss this on the talk page. I suggest you remove your edit to the page. If James Corbett (journalist) has enough to make a page, then it should be done. But don't assume that others have the same interest. There are tens of thousands of pages that need attention, having a following on YouTube isn't enough. There must be secondary notable citations to prove it, otherwise every garage band and psychic would have a WP page.Sgerbic (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't mean to give you a to do list, I just wanted a bit of feedback, guidance, and perhaps that you might keep an eye on a page that I think is being unfairly slammed on. I understand YouTube is not traditional mainstream media, but once it gets several million views it's kinda relevant and not just a following. Edit wars are uncool but I'm not even getting a fair shake. I've created the page (my first), and it got deleted before I finished. I haven't even had a chance to start adding the citations. I suspect he may be on government watch lists or something. I don't want to drag you into something you aren't comfortable with regarding government oppression shit, but I feel out of my Wikipedia depth here regarding editing and wiki-tribalism. I'm trying here, my first page, and maybe learning as I go isn't the best way to do this, especially with a political hot potato. I probably should write the whole page then submit it, and I like to see it then revise it, but some ass hat keeps deleting all my citations and stuff before I can even see what's what. It's only 5am. FYI: I have never contacted James Corbett nor have any related interests other than at least giving him a page so that others can either discover, reference, add, etc. about alternative media and alternative political perspectives worth spreading in a world dominated by Trump and Hillary = illusion of democratic freedumb. JasonCarswell (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

HELP! Harry the Dirty Dog claims that "blogs are not reliable sources". This may be generally true, but I doubt he's even looked at this material. The Daily Kos, HuffPo, AlterNet, are all news blogs yet they are 'legitimate'. Granted Corbett Report is not as big but certainly not typical nor insignificant. His documentaries are as good as, if not better than, many other indie producers and mainstream channels that I could easily list if required. If mainstream media is the only 'legitimate' source then we've got a bigger problem than I thought (if censored skeptical discussion cannot find and share authentic solutions = new dark ages). I linked to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds legit Wikipedia page and he deleted it. I'm done for today. I'm terribly sorry for "dumping" this crap at/on you, but I don't know anyone else on Wikipedia nor have I any anti-dogma allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonCarswell (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone deleted it. JasonCarswell (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, slow down and take a deep breath. I know this is frustrating and seems very unfair but lets break this down into digestible bits so we can understand (I'll try to do it quickly as I've got to get to work then two hours at the dentist oh joy!) So

• You are more than welcome to contact me for help and feedback. My email is susangerbic@yahoo.com and probably easier and less public.
• You do not get to decide what is noteworthy and what is not. Having a million views on YouTube is not the criteria of what is notable. Having secondary sources from notable people published in notable places is. You admire this person, I get that. He might be worth being admired. But that alone does not mean he can have a Wikipedia page. You have to PROVE it.
• Here is the cusp of the matter and I mean this most kindly. If someone wanted to read from the beginning of my talk page they would see me making error after error trying to learn to edit on my own. I screwed up many times. You said, "I've created the page (my first), and it got deleted before I finished. I haven't even had a chance to start adding the citations." Jason you have to start with the citations. They are the life-blood of the article. I tell my people that they need to find 3 noteworthy secondary citations from 3 different noteworthy people published in 3 different noteworthy places BEFORE creating a sandbox and starting work on the page. We have learned the hard way that you can have it deleted after spending hours working on it. And it has happened a few times. Another thing, why are you not using a sandbox? Are you trying to create an article in real time, publically? How would someone know that you are "not done with it?" If it is live, then in their view you are done with it. Editors aren't psychic. You create in your sandbox, working and working at it until it is terrific and then make it live. And then you write on the talk page of your new article all the ideas you had but could not find references for so someone else can do it. Then you walk away. And I mean it, don't think you own it, once it is live it is meant for anyone to edit.
• It was deleted quickly, this is because it is easy to delete a WP page if it is done quickly. If the page remains up then there is this whole process with voting and lots of time spent discussing it. Yes, that would have been where you could explain yourself, but you didn't go that route. This is why WP deletes pages quickly when they see them go up and they aren't cited correctly.
• The WP editor did not read the citations you wanted to leave, it is not their job to do so. It is your job to prove that this person is noteworthy. If the editor had the time to go through looking for sources he/she would just have finished the WP page.
• Blogs are NOT reliable sources. If they were every frickin blogger would have a WP page. Every idea ever thought would be fair game to put on a page as a citation. WP does not allow that. Only notable citations. Yes, from time to time a blog is used, but it is rare and in context and never to prove notability. That is already done with strong secondary sources.
• Another problem is that you are jumping in head first editing. Why are you doing this? There are millions of pages that need work, but you are choosing to write a page about someone you admire. If you want that person to have a lasting quality page, then first learn how to edit correctly and then come back to it and do it right. If you admire this person then make sure they are left with something quality, not slapped together.
• You also need to watch your tone, you are starting to sound very conspiratorial. Accusing editors of actions that you think are against you and the page you are trying to write. I assure you that these people are not trying to infringe on your rights or even care about the political nature of your topic. They are here to keep WP reputable. Yes, sometimes they just delete things without leaving a reason why they did so. Yes, sometimes they can be a bit snarky or bruff. If you saw the amount of nonsense and slander and crazy ideas people leave and have to be removed, you would understand why they get jaded and brisk. No one is paid to do this, it is done because it is necessary and out of love of the project.
• So slow down and learn. There are lots of help documents that you can use to learn. You obviously know how to "edit" but what the problem is now is that you don't understand some of the more advanced things. Spend time reading. Read lots and lots of talk pages, follow the links and learn that way. These discussions are happening all over the place. Read the delete discussions and you will have your eyes opened. THEN start editing again, slowly. Focus on making lasting changes. Work on pages for your home town, your favorite band, your favorite book or movie. Pick a butterfly or potato and work on that. You will learn and you will also build a edit history to be proud of. They judge your skill on how experienced you are. And that can be proved in a couple clicks. They aren't out to get you Jason, they would be very happy with you to succeed, but you have to look at it from their eyes. Step page and do so. How do you look any different than someone who is pushing their favorite psychic? You can contact me all you want, but I have to get to work and then the dentist now.Sgerbic (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)