Freonfreakone

Welcome!

Hello, Freonfreakone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as CyPhaCon, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Inks.LWC (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CyPhaCon

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on CyPhaCon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, well. I understand the deletion of the CyPhaCon article, since it was only a first year event. I'm not happy about it, but I understand it. However, it is my intention to revisit this issue, once CyPhaCon completes it's second event next year.Freonfreakone (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Convention du Lac Edit War

{{helpme}} I've recently run into a problem with editing the Convention du Lac article. Apparently, my extensive participation in two of the three events (making me VERY knowledgeable of what occurred both in public and private, with a bare minimum of conjecture), and contributions to expanding and fleshing out the article are considered somehow disruptive; a user or users (all of whom I suspect are user jtoney5872, who originated the article) are continually 'undo'ing my improvements, without discussion or compromise. These users refuse to discuss WHY they're doing what they're doing; I'M open to correction and/or compromise, if they'd just respond to my solicitations on the Convention du Lac 'Talk' page. But no dice. So, I'm thinking of waiting until they make one or two more 'undo's, then requesting some sort of arbitration from other users or the Admins...a seemingly complicated process on the surface, but I don't know how else to resolve the problem. I'd be interested in other opinions; am I being obtuse or selfish in wanting a complete telling of Convention du Lac history in the article?Freonfreakone (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see exactly why they're reverting you. You are not adhering to [[WP:NPOV] - 'undaunted' and 'Seeking a fresh and innovative direction' (to give two examples) are not neutral. Your edits give the impression that you are editing for the event, and you should, if this is the case, read WP:COI. Another point is that you give no references. Sorry, you might know more about it than anyone but you are not an independent reliable source. See WP:RS. Without RS, it counts as WP:OR, original research. While it might have been better for the reverters to discuss with you on the talk page, your edits were not really suitable. They could have explained this to you, but they might have been put off by your tone on the talk page. This might be unintentional on your part, but you do give me the impression that you have taken the article over, and I would advise looking at WP:OWN if only for tips on how not to appear to be failing this unintentionally. Very probably, both sides here have been acting in good faith, but I would like to see a bit of real communication and adherence to the policies. I'll leave the helpme up for another opinion. Peridon (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Peridon for your analysis. To say I find editing Wikipedia articles to be complicated is an understatement. But I'll take your recommendations to heart, and will attempt to alter my Convention du Lac edits, or any others, accordingly. Thanks again.Freonfreakone (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To expand on one aspect of that: Wikipedia's three main content policies are:

• WP:Neutral point of view, which Peridon mentioned,
• WP:Verifiability: "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
• WP:No original research: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists."

The last two mean that content based on your "extensive participation in two of the three events (making me VERY knowledgeable of what occurred both in public and private, with a bare minimum of conjecture)" is not acceptable as a basis for additions to the article.

I hope your question is adequately answered, so I have "turned off" the "helpme" - please add another if you need more advice. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John; I appreciate the input from you both. I must admit that I didn't, in my impatience, give sufficient time or effort to studying Wiki policies; I jumped into the 'deep end' and floundered about. But rest assured that my next editing efforts will be of a more educated nature, complying with Wiki policy, objectivity, and neutrality, thanks to you and Peridon.Freonfreakone (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. So many don't... Sorry if I seemed a bit rude - I find it concentrates the mind of the recipient quite often. Like most admins here, I'm really quite friendly. 8-[ Peridon (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apollo 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Denver, Colorado Hop Alley/Chinese Riot of 1880 concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Denver, Colorado Hop Alley/Chinese Riot of 1880, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chinese Riot of 1880 (April 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF 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:Denver, Colorado Hop Alley/Chinese Riot of 1880 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:Denver, Colorado Hop Alley/Chinese Riot of 1880, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Freonfreakone! 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! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Denver, Colorado Hop Alley/Chinese Riot of 1880

Hello, Freonfreakone. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chinese Riot of 1880".

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 by following the instructions at this link. 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!} 23:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)