User talk:HonorableTip

This is HonorableTip'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: sandbox (June 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JamesBWatson was:

It is difficult to know where to start in explaining why this draft is unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. Here are some of the problems: the draft appears to be written to promote or publicise its subject; it fails to provide evidence that its subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines; it provides no independent sources to verify its content; it is written more like a personal essay than an objective, detached, factual report; it contains content previously published in various places, without evidence of copyright licensing.

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 User:HonorableTip/sandbox 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 User:HonorableTip/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it has become apparent that the problems with your editing, both from the accounts you have used and when you have edited without using an account, have been of such a nature that you are not likely to become a constructive editor. Therefore, somewhat reluctantly, I have blocked you indefinitely from editing. I give further explanation of the reasons below this notice. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then by add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of this page, replacing the words "Your reason here" with a brief explanation of the reason you think you should be unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several problems with your editing. At least some of them have already been mentioned to you, either on the talk pages of the accounts you have used or elsewhere, but for clarity I will list some of the main problems here.

Your sole purpose in editing is to use Wikipedia to publicise a person who you think is not getting coverage in published media, and who you think should be better known. There is no doubt about that: you have said numerous things such as "Gregg Jann wants attention", "Gregg Jann is an unknown person, he did things not covered in media", "he has a duty to be known to the public", and so on and so on. That is contrary both to Wikipedia's policy that editing for promotion is not permitted, and to Wikipedia's notability guideline, which states that a subject that has not received substantial coverage in reliable independent published sources is not acceptable as the topic of an article.
You have explicitly stated that you are the person you are writing about, which means that you have been editing contrary to the guideline on conflict of interest.
You have explicitly stated that you are the person you are writing about, but you have also made statements clearly intended to give the impression that you were somebody else. (e.g. "I am trying to write about Gregg Jann of Jannda.com. I think like him...")
You have made repeated attempts to re-create a page which you know has been the subject of a deletion discussion which produced unambiguous concensus that it is unsuitable, so that it was deleted. Ignoring concensus in that way is not in line with the collaorative anture of Wikipedia.
You have repeatedly re-submitted the re-created page in question as a draft article for creation, under more than one title, thus wasting the time of reviewers, who spend time reviewing a totally unsuitable draft, without knowing that they are repeating a task that has already been performed several times. The time they spend on that could have been more fruitfully spent on more useful tasks, so your actions cause damage to other parts of the encyclopaedia.
As has been pointed out by more than one editor, much of what you write is so incoherent as to be substantially incomprehensible.
You frequently seem unable to understand what other editors have said to you, making communication impossible, and you have never shown any sign at all of responding to what others have said, or in any way taking it into account in how you continue to act.

The conclusion to draw from that is that your presence is not helping to build the encyclopaedia, and indeed on the contrary by taking up time of editors it is damaging the encyclopaedia. I considered posting a message to you warning you that if you continued in the same way you might be blocked from editing. However, having thought about it further I have decided that there is no realistic prospect of your becoming a constructive editor, because (1) you clearly have no interest in doing anything other than things which are contrary to Wikipedia's purpose and policies, (2) you appear to be genuinely unable to understand what the problems are, which means that you would not be able to change your ways even if you intended to, and (3) you are evidently unable to write English in a way which is suitable for Wikipedia, which again means that you would not be able to change. I have therefore, somewhat reluctantly, decided that giving you a warning of a block if you don't change your ways would be unlikely to achieve any useful purpose, and would permit further waste of time for both you and other editors, I have blocked you from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]