|Usedtobecool is taking a semi-wikibreak and will fully return to Wikipedia later.|
I registered on 16 August 2015. My username is the first of the few random non-gibberish strings I tried that happened to be available; only psychoanalysts could possibly say more on what it says about me. There, apparently, is a band that shares the name, but, fortunately (for me at least), they do not seem to be on a path to notability. I tried to become a regular contributor but soon found I needed to learn a lot of policies and guidelines which I did not then have the time for, so I reverted back to sporadic anonymous editing. Then, on 29 March 2019, upon noticing that I had been logged out again, I logged in and things escalated from there, probably because I had time to spare.
- Are you new?
First thing to know about Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and it's ideal is verifiability, not truth. So, Wikipedia is definitely not the place to correct the record on what all others have got wrong. Second thing to know is that Wikipedia is not one of the websites for promoting something so as to get it to the top of the google search. Third thing to know is that you are allowed to make mistakes, the site is setup in such a way that it is almost impossible for a new editor to break anything. If you do something wrong, someone will correct you. You need to know what talk pages are and where to find them. If you assume good faith, use the talk pages and are willing to listen to opposing viewpoints, you can't go wrong.
Writing new articles is hard. You need to know and understand the general notability guideline. If the subject fails it, you need to be able to determine which of the subject-specific special notability guidelines apply, and whether the topic you've chosen meets any of them. Getting started, you needed to understand the principle of verifiability and the basics of how to use it in practice in a Wikipedia article. You need to make sure you don't violate the policies relating to the living persons, and copyright. Finally, you need to be careful to not include original research in your work and to follow the neutral point of view in your writing.
- Are you from Nepal?
Thank you for signing up; Wikipedia needs more editors from Nepal. First of all, you need to understand what reliable sources are. I have compiled an incomplete list of sources that google commonly throws up when searching for topics from Nepal, to try and provide a rough guidance as to their reliability and their value in determining whether a topic is notable, as Wikipedia defines it. It is at User:Usedtobecool/PSN. Do take a look and let me know if it helps. I am also working on a list of topics that are definitely notable, to hopefully help new users from Nepal who want to write new articles choose a topic so that it won't get deleted for lack of notability. It is very much a work in progress and is currently at User:Usedtobecool/Notability (Nepal). I have created two userboxen that users from Nepal might like to add to their userpages, User:Usedtobecool/Nepalese-cuisine and User:Usedtobecool/Nepal-cricket-team. WikiProject Nepal has a lot of outstanding tasks that new editors can immediately start helping out with. So, if you are having trouble deciding where to get started, drop me a note, and we'll find something that you like.
If you joined because you saw something you thought was biased or, as ever, undervaluing the importance of your country, your caste or your religion, you may be right, but you may also be wrong. Wikipedia is very very imperfect, and there are not many editors from Nepal, so it is likely that there are a lot of things biased against Nepal which have gone unnoticed. If you intend to remedy that, please do not edit-war and get blocked immediately; instead, take your time to go through the verifiability policy and the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. You need to take the time to read and understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the many sources that are used in the articles, and still more sources that need to be brought to the table to demonstrate that the neutral point of view is different from what the article currently says. It is very likely that views and "truth"s that you have seen in youtube or a random blog, or heard from politicians are wrong. You need to be open to being shown that you're wrong and the other editors are right. Vandalising, edit-warring or calling other editors or Wikipedia names may make you feel good for a short while, but you won't educated anyone else or yourself.