User talk:Rachelmarks12

This is Rachelmarks12'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: Rachel Marks (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

Draft:Rachel Marks may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rachelmarks12! 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! ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 22:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rachelmarks12. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little advice

Hello, Rachel. Unfortunately your start of editing Wikipedia has met some problems, which I guess is likely to be be frustrating. Most, if not all, of us when we start editing have mistaken ides about what will be acceptable and what won't (I certainly did) which can lead to difficulties. However, I will offer a few words of advice about the draft article you have created. I hope that what I say may help you to understand better what is considered suitable, and therefore make it less likely that you will put tie and effort into things which are very unlikely to be accepted.

I have already drawn your attention to Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest, and perhaps even more relevant is Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you read that page you will find out that editing about yourself is strongly discouraged. The reasons are described there, but the essential points are, I think, as follows. (1) Writing about oneself it is difficult to stand back and see objectively how one's writing will look from the detached point of view of an independent outside observer. The result of that is that very often someone who comes to Wikipedia in perfectly good faith, believing that they are giving a balanced and neutral account of themselves, in fact writes what looks to others as blatant self-promotion. It is really difficult to avoid that problem. (2) What I have just said is about people who do not intend to promote themselves, but also many people come here with precisely self-promotion in mind. I do not criticise anyone for coming here with that intention: it is perfectly natural for people to think that "anyone can edit Wikipedia" means that anyone can use it to publicise themselves and their work, but in fact it means something like "anyone can contribute to Wikipedia in ways that are in line with Wikipedia's policies", and one of those policies is that editing to promote, publicise or advertise anything or anyone is not permissible; that includes publicising oneself and one's work.
A Wikipedia article should give a plain factual objective account of its subject, and not give any kind of analysis or commentary. Thus, language such as "looks at the relationship between nature and language by investigating identity through integration" does not belong in Wikipedia.
In order to be acceptable as the topic of a Wikipedia article as subject must satisfy certain guidelines on notability. In my opinion there are far too many policies and guidelines, and most of them are far longer and more complex than they need to be, making it very difficult for new editors to find their way around, but in your case the most relevant notability guidelines are the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of people. You should certainly look at those before doing any more editing. I have made a fairly brief search for information about you, and I'm afraid it doesn't look to me as though you satisfy those guidelines; if not, then no article about you, however it may be written, is likely to survive for long. However, if when you have looked at those guidelines you believe that you do satisfy them, then you need to provide references to reliable sources that show that you do.
You are, of course, very welcome indeed to start contributing to the encyclopaedia in a neutral way on subjects other than yourself if you are interested in doing so, but if your only interest is in using Wikipedia to publicise your own work then my advice is that you would be much better advised to instead put the work involved into publicising yourself in other places, as doing so in Wikiepdia is unlikely to succeed. I am sorry for giving you such a negative view, which may seem very unfriendly, but I believe that in fact it is much more likely to be helpful to you to let you know from the start what the situation is than to encourage you to put time and effort into something which is probably destined to lead nowhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Rachel Marks

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 Draft:Rachel Marks, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It is a draft which has not been edited in over six months. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Phospheros (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]