User talk:The Red Hussar

January 2020

There are several problems with the article Neo-Nazism in Ukraine, which you have created by over-writing a redirect, including the following. The article clearly espouses a particular point of view, rather than being written from a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia policy. At times it even explicitly expresses opinions. There are numerous points in the article where the writing does not follow correct English. At least some of the references are to sources which do not satisfy Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. In at least some cases the cited sources do not actually say what you have said in the article; for example, I found a place where you had stated as a fact somethiing which the cited source (itself not a reliable one) merely said was "apparently" the case. Because of problems such as those, the page is unsuitable as a Wikipedia article, and so I shall restore the redirect.

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. However, if you decide not to take that advice, but instead to go ahead with starting an article now, you should do so by creating a draft article, and when you think it is ready submitting it to be reviewed by an experienced editor who will either accept it as an article or else give you advice on what needs to be changed to make it acceptable. You can see how to do that at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. JBW (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on! Just point me out whats wrong in the text and I will fix it. --The Red Hussar (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, follow standard protocol for deletion. I dont understand which sources exactly you consider as unreliable and where exactly my text isnt supported by the provided sources. The Red Hussar (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To list all the faults would require an extensive essay, far beyond what I can afford time to do. However, as far as neutral point of view is concerned, you cannot possibly have written the page without knowing full well that you were doing so to promote a point of view, so you should be able to see for yourself what is involved. For example, use of such words and expressions as "unfortunately", "threatens", "impaired", "remains a matter of concern", and so on and so on, express judgements. However, it would be completely misleading to leave it at that, as though cleaning up the article were just a amatter of removing specific words such as those. The whole thing, from start to finish, is imbued with a tone of promoting a particular point of view, and to remove that tone would require rewriting the whole thing, not just making a few changes. JBW (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cant agree with you about the lack of neutrality, cause I just written what was published in academic sources (Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right) and in the mass media covering the topic (for example The Nation). The rest of the remarks can be easily fixed in the usual way. --The Red Hussar (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources very often express points of view, but whatever a source says a Wikipedia article shoiuld not reflect any such point of view. You ask me to "follow standard protocol for deletion". That would have been easy: I could have just speedily deleted the page as unambiguously promotional, but instead I chose to give you advice on what needed to be done. Since you have decided to ignore what I have said, and restored the unacceptable content, I shall move it to draft space. That will give you a chance to work on improving the text to make it suitable, without risk of speedy deletion, if you still choose not to take my advice to new editors. If so, please submit it for review when you have suitably rewritten it. JBW (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, point me out where I have to submit this draft for the review? --The Red Hussar (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neo-Nazism in Ukraine (January 22)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

See the comments of User:JBW, in particular with respect to neutral point of view.

This draft is a request to spin out an article, a form of splitting. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article.

This does not mean that the draft should be spun out, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun out. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.) Discussion of whether a separate article on Ukraine is needed should be at Talk:Neo-Nazism.

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:Neo-Nazism in Ukraine 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:Neo-Nazism in Ukraine, 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) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Red Hussar! 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) 14:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]