Your user page, however, is a perfect place to write a bit about yourself, especially as it relates to Wikipedia editing – your work and aspirations as a Wikipedian, to-do lists, useful policy/guideline links and the like. While you may write some unrelated content, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. To access your userpage, just click on your user name at the top of the screen after you have logged in.
I hope to accomplish 3 tasks on here first: 1. A decent Globalscape page, 2. A decent TappIn page and 3. A decent Jack Newman page because he deserves to have a page like his buddies Hank Snow, Jimmy Newman, Jim Reeves, Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson who did most of the leads on his recordings through the years, and as well Ray Price and Elvis, not in any particular order. Anybody who toured with Elvis performing his own act is notable and shouldn't have to wait till some day some 3rd party decides they think he ought to have a page here. That's a rule I feel I need to lobby for change about because you can simply go by the rules no matter who you are to write a good page, whether you are 1st, 2nd or 3rd party. For instance, how can you be unobjective about his birthday, the name of his songs, who he was associated with, who he wrote for? Those are all facts. Did any of his songs make it to the Top Ten or Top Twenty on Billboard? Again, who can screw up factual data. So I would lobby for the use of information by family, friends, and others who give verifiable facts. For instance, also, Jack has several recordings nobody knows about nor could anybody write about them because I'm the only one who knows about them. I have the sole studio output with the studio names on them, his name, the songs, and some with nothing but the studio names, like in Hollywood, or at Jim Reeves studio, or even when a radio station recorded him doing Jimmie Rodgers for Mrs. Jimmie Rodgers. According to current rules of Wikipedia, I believe I would have to do an interview with a major publication, show them the works, have them write it up in an interview or article, then wait until some 3rd party person comes along some day and decides to tell the world about them: that's rather slow and untenable, awkward even, especially in an age where everything seems to move at the speed of light, of the Internet, and fast is the order of the day, and whoever has the best information, the latest updates, is able to make the most informed decision; which I think in such a competitive world, can't we do better. For now, I will delve more into the rules for writers and editors, and see what forums there are to address such things because if this were a business, this would be one of the big cons. Reminds me of the FDA somewhat, that it takes so long to approve a drug; yes, there are benefits to waiting but when you know it's a good thing, and have to keep waiting, that's a problem. I guess same as the FDA has its pros and cons, Wikipedia has its, too. Maybe this is something they agree with me on but just don't know how to implement a change. So I will follow up on this. I owe it to Jack and country music fans to get him a page; and I'm fairly certain you aren't allowed to pay someone (3rd party) to do that, as it would be a proxy for yourself and likely have your oversight involved, with your approvals, so I can see that's not gonna work. I could advertise for someone to do it themselves? For free. I don't know. To be a go0getter and be forced to sit and wait for some fish to hit the line, that seems so je n'sais qua. I need to research. Bye.
Contributing Poorly structured lead sections. The lead should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. It should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. (See Wikipedia:Lead section.) (Note by me: be careful because if you use psychological priming to prep readers for what's coming, somebody is going to take that as teasing, especially those not familiar with priming. 1/3/15)
External links in text. Relevant external links should be added to a links section at the foot of the article. If the link is a reference to a reliable source, then you should use reference tags to create an inline citation. (See Wikipedia:External links.)
Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
Jan. 4, 2015: added 4 citations to the first part of the Globalscape page to support the latest statements I placed in the article, to support via independent, recognized 3rd parties, such as NetworkWorld magazine, which I first began to read in the lobby of the computer department when a student at Trinity University years ago. I got pretty good sources for the line that says reliability, mission-critical and lists a dozen or so industries they work in. I cited secure and worldwide, and also used the banking journal my bankers know and use. I learned a hard lesson which was that people tend to view statements too critically as if they are Sherlock Holmes uncovering the latest crime or fraud, and that I can't complain about how they are, but I have to change myself to deal with that so that rather than turn them off by what seems a fantastic statement, I need to instead frame that statement in the context and with the backing of qualified resources that will say it for me in a convincing manner. That way it proves and bears out that I am presenting an objective report or article, because after all, those who write baloney can't back it up. And I understand that, but somehow the monitor on Wiki came after me so fast before I could go to the bathroom, take care of mom's needs and get back to citing the article. The citing tonight only took about 30 minutes though I had to take breaks to help mom, even at this hour, as she just called for me now again. Personal info I hope only I can read, but what the hey. And I actually find it fun locating the right articles. Like the one on all the industries, I was going to originally find a dozen articles to back those things up, or a dozen sources to do it, when this article's title kind of said the same things, "No matter what industry" and then the article, in NetworkWorld, shows 6 or 7 images with paragraphs under each from Globalscape about those 5 or 6 industries it covered in the article, so I listed that at the end of the sentence right after that industry list. I can also look for other articles, sources by 3rd parties to add to that, as well. I just laughed how neat the title fit and that it covered so many industries I had mentioned they do, and that it came from the highly recognized NetworkWorld! So maybe the guy/girl who got after me now can see and learn a thing or two that this isn't baloney, and I think I need them to learn not to offend others, as Wiki says in the help that don't worry, everybody makes mistakes, such that you feel good about trying to start out and do this, not get into a FEAR trip from some monitor looking over your back like a schoolyard bully. That was weird. Ishould have just requested or searched for a way to contact someone higher up, like a supervisor, rather than waste so much time responding to that. It's prob like a high school kid on a power trip. It felt like getting a ticket for not stopping at the stop sign and yet you are still on your approach to the stop sign and haven't gotten to it yet. Hey you, you didn't make a complete stop. See you in court. Wow. I didn't even read the messages today because I don't have time and don't want to be yelled at by someone who is so derogatory to break Wiki rules himself in using cusswords and kind of violating the atmosphere as I mentioned above,
Hey, I just searched the help for start a page and got this, some info about a person who actually has affiliations to the topic, that they could write it, but just make sure they follow these guidelines, and I thought looks good for use for anybody as a bottom line type of reference, if you know what that means:
Things to avoid
Things to be careful about
Great ways to contribute
Don't add promotional language Don't remove negative/critical text from an article Don't make a "group" account for multiple people to share Don't neglect to disclose your affiliation on the article's talk page
Maintain a neutral, objective tone in any content you add or edit
Cite secondary sources (e.g., a major media article) for any new statements you add – even if you are confident a statement is true (e.g., it is about your work), only say it if it has been restated already in a secondary source.
Make minor edits/corrections to articles (e.g., typos, fixing links, adding references to new secondary sources)
If you are biased, suggest new article text or edits on the article talk page (not on the main article page). Disclose your relationship to the client/topic. Edit using personal accounts. Recruit help: Seek out a sponsor (volunteer editor) who has worked on similar articles, or submit ideas for article topics via Requested articles.
I shouldn't have any problem adhering to such advice, since I often give it myself. A lot of this whole baloney monitor thing is just due to the fact I didn't cite the articles fast enough (THE SAME DAY, LOL) and that the monitor doesn't know the subject and thinks the claims are not true, due to their inexperience. I am looking into how to find a "monitor" who actually knows about the field of secure information for computer systems to speak with here somewhere on a forum. In the meantime, when I get the time tomorrow I will be building those citations on the page even more. I mean, honestly, when you are honest and sincere, and you have the citations out there, it really does help you to be more the expert once you have those citations attached to things you say to others, write, email whatever. But then, most people I do that with already know I'm not full of baloney. but I can see that here it's a different ballgame on that point. So I just will cite as I write, or write the article in the flow of consciousness in Notepad and then cite it and then post it, prob the easiest and fastest.