Gogonowski

Do not hide major edits as minor

Hi Gogonowski! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: StreamS HiFi Radio (June 22)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

David.moreno72 07:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gogonowski! 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! David.moreno72 07:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello Gogonowski. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:StreamS HiFi Radio, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Gogonowski. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Gogonowski|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Fiddle Faddle 20:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What to do with your draft

You found me by email. Yes, the user interface is archaic. Mediawiki software is pretty poor and the entire user interface shows a very 1990s look and feel.

If you are able to, please take a couple of paces backwards. Of course you're frustrated that the draft seems unlikely to make forward progress. I'll have a look at that later. Everyone finds writing their first article from scratch here to be fraught with obstacles they never considered to be possible, or even obstacles at all. This is true when one writes an article about the design of hats because one has an interest in hats, too. When I started there was no WP:AFC process, which, tortuous as it is, has genuinely made life easier. We just got on with it and had our first born articles deleted as being below par. Or if they survived, we saw them ripped apart and edited beyond what we hoped they would be.

Creating your first article is the same as being presented with a very powerful racing motorcycle when you've never ridden one before, nor even a pedal cycle, being blindfolded, and being told to ride it across a tightrope stretched over Niagara Falls.

The rules. Oh the rules. And knowing them without having a clue what is going on, that is tough beyond measure.

The first article I created was Raven's Ait, and that was the first instance. Today it would have been deleted on sight. Then it didn't even meet the rules. Today, many years and other editors later, it looks like this: Raven's Ait. It could do with improvement still. If you look at its editing history you can see how many editors have tweaked even that little article.

Writing an article that is dear to your heart, though, that is really difficult. You're attempting to put one of your products into Wikipedia. The odds are stacked against you for several reasons:

• You're too close to it, so it will always be worded in a way that shows your affection for it
• Google links you to it intimately
• I've looked for references for it. I cant find them. And references are special things. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

In your mind, and very naturally, this product is notable. You derive some or all of your income from sales. You are justifiably proud of it. You may have coded it all yourself. Of course it's notable.

In the Wikipedia collective mind it is seen very differently. It is just another app. Out of all of them there are very few indeed that pass the Wikipedia notability test. And notability doesn't mean that they're good. They can be notable for being appalling! Wikipedia has articles when enough people are recorded in third party reliable sources as saying something significant about them. That's back to WP:42 again. Press releases don't cut it. We all know how to spot one of those at 100 paces.

The only thing that will get this draft over the notability threshold is WP:42, other people writing independent signifiant coverage in reliable sources.

So, what do you do?

Honestly, to save yourself stress and horrible frustration, wait for that independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. If you don't then you will build up hate and resentment towards an encyclopaedia, an encyclopaedia that genuinely doesn't care about you, or me, or any editor. The collective mind, the 'wisdom of crowds' has put this beast together, created all of its rules, administers the rules and is often seen as petty, bureaucratic and unpleasant. Most regular editors are weirdos. I know I'm one. In your own way I bet you are, too.

I hope the explanation has shown you at least why you haven't been able, yet, to achieve acceptance of your draft. I can if you like, critique the references you've chosen. I'm not sure that will be helpful.

Thank you for reaching out to me. If you reply here put {{re|Timtrent}} at the start of your reply. I'll be alerted to it. Just copy and paste it from the message here, without the nowiki stuff in brackets around it. Reading this message back I see it might appear patronising. It was not written with that intent. Please don't read it as such. Fiddle Faddle 07:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

{{re|Timtrent}} Thank you for this information. It really is spot on, frustration and all :). I've since spent more time reading the article requirements, and I will do a complete edit on the article, and get back to you then to see if it will work. Then I guess we go from there. I have several more credible references that I will site, as well as much more information for the article itself. Thanks again. /Greg. gogonowski GOgonowski (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:StreamS HiFi Radio

Hello, Gogonowski. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "StreamS HiFi Radio".

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!} 19:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)