Kaizero

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kaizero! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amalie Olufsen (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Hoary 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amalie Olufsen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Hoary (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I've resolved the issues you've raised to the best of my ability.

I am uncertain how to source the other brands she has worked with as this isn't reported widely in the news but is visible on her social media channels, perhaps that section should be shortened? I am new at editing Wikipedia, so my apologies if I have made errors. I hope to become a seasoned editor with time and thought it was a good idea to start with a subject/person I personally knew a fair amount of information about going into the article creation process - rather than having to research what I was going to create as a starting point. Some questions:

- Should sections in Wikipedia rather be shorter than contain information that can't be sourced through press coverage/press releases?

- How should social media be used/treated with regards to information sourced/gathered?

- How should articles behind paywalls be used/treated as source material? Specifically, there is an article directly referencing the family relationship between Olufsen and her brother, who plays professional football, but it is behind a paywall: https://www.ranablad.no/amalie-21-har-alltid-heiet-fram-broren-joachim-pa-fotballbanen-na-skal-hun-selv-spille-i-filmen-om-fotballhelten-paul-gascoigne/s/5-42-551877

Thank you for your assistance and guidance, it is much appreciated and will undoubtedly make me learn a lot for future articles/editing! Kaizero (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kaizero! Having an article draft 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! Hoary (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amalie Olufsen (September 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amalie Olufsen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amalie Olufsen (September 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:  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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amalie Olufsen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

For starters, this person isn't a pornstar. Are you even checking sources when reviewing articles? What is this editorial standard? It's nonsensical.

The subject qualifies for 2 out of 3 items on the ANYBIO list you link to. She has been nominated for notable awards and is one of five Norwegian women in history to do so, which has 'caused massive press coverage, TV appereances and more.

It's like editors don't even bother to check the source material. This is some absolute nonsense and makes me doubt the Wikipedia editorial standard. Kaizero (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years, and I've been reviewing drafts for almost that long. But yes, new person, you know so much better than I that this subject is notable. It's a shame your stunning wisdom doesn't convince anyone else. I am curious why you don't just wait until Amalie Olufsen dies? Once someone dies there are obituaries that provide lots of good source material. Further, do you have a historical background? A history student would tell you that you can't really do justice to a subject until all the dust has settled. Writing about someone living with the shoddy sources you have doesn't befit Amalie Olufsen. So why not wait? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

This type of idiotic, sassy and non-constructive answer is what I've come to expect from the Wikipedia editors after all this. You say "shoddy sources", reality says:

- The largest newspaper by circuation numbers in all of Europe. (Bild!)

- The largest newspaper by circulation numbers in Norway. (Aftenposten)

- The second and third largest newspapers by circulation in Norway. (VG and Dagbladet)

- The largest newspaper by circulation in Denmark. (Ekstra Bladet)

- The largest TV/News medium in Norway. (NRK)

- The largest commercial TV/News medium in Norway. (TV2)

- The BBC.

- The largest commercial TV/News medium in the UK. (The Daily Mail)

- The largest newspaper by circulation in Scotland. (The Scottish Sun)

- The largest newspaper by circulation in the UK. (The Daily Mail)

- She is the only official representative outside North America for the 21st largest brand (by licencing rights) in the world (Playboy).

- Her face has been on products sold in 180 out of 195 countries in the world by fronting Playboy. (PLBY Group Ltd annual earnings call)

- The Playboy brand has a 90% global recognisability rate, even amongst Gen Z. (Forbes)

- Playboy is the 31st most memorable brand, by logo recognisability, in the world. (Forbes)

I can't even be bothered to list more reasons. I've already dismantled any kind of argument from other reviewers by referencing Google Trends and comparing notability with personalities that Wikipedia Editors already have deemed notable enough for an article to be approved, yet you're all dying on this hill.

If any of the editors actually responded with actual advice on how to alter the draft before I'd resubmit it, advice I've kindly asked for multiple times, as this is (as also mentioned multiple times) my first attempt at writing an article from scratch for Wikipedia. Instead, the only response any editor gives is that they don't deem the person notable enough - with no valid reasons as to why the person is not notable enough, even when faced with irrefutable facts from Google clearly showing the person is more notable than 95% of all other Norwegians alread on here that aren't notable for historical reasons, but contemporary ones.

I get told to resubmit the article and ask for another editor to review it, so I do - only for the new editor to eny the draft immediately. To make matters even worse, the reason they give for denying the article was just a straight up lie. To me, all that says is that the editor can't even have read up on the person for ten seconds when they were "reviewing" the draft. Just straight up throwing out character assasinations about one of the most recognisable contemporory Norwegians around. Another editor being so insanely far off the mark doesn't make any sense, I can't believe anything else than that the editors here on Wikipedia might just be lazy and don't want to make an effort anymore, so it's easier to google a name, glance at the appereance of the person whose draft they are reviewing, before just spouting absolute bullshit about why the draft can't be approved by them.

If Wikipedia in any way, shape or form wants to keep thriving - you'd imagine it needs volunteers to write article drafts. However, all that its editors are doing (my subjective opinion, of course) is driving those potential volunteers away by being dismissive and talking down to them from their high horse - instead of offering a helping hand to ensure that a motivated article writer sticks around to keep writing. As I also mentioned, this was who I chose as the subject for my first article draft, as compared to the other people on my to-do list it was the obvious slam-dunk choice for an easy start given how she's literally an A-List celebrity in Norway and has achieved so much in her career already. As a matter of fact, by looking through the list of most recently approved article drafts when it comes to people that are still alive today - 1 out of 2 are in no way more notable than her, or have achieved more honors in their careers/lives at this point. It's a double standard. She broke through in Norway from being only the fifth Norwegian woman on the cover of a Playboy magazine since Playboy launched in December 1953. It is clearly how she became a notable person that seems to be the issue here, not anything rooted in fact.

If this was a newspaper I'd ask to speak with the Chief Editor to inform them of how unprofessional and downright rude his editing staff are towards a contributing writer. Alas, I have no idea if Wikipedia even has any Chief Editors.

At this stage I can't do anything else than give up. No Wikipedia Editors have so far given any form of actual advice on what should be done with the article to improve it so it meets the standards required for approval. Instead, all they take small jabs at the person that once was motivated to write for Wikipedia and laugh amongst themselves about how little the person knows about the Wikipedia editorial standards and demands - whilst knowing that the writer has owned up to being very unfamiliar with it, so much that he'd multiple times asked for guidance and assistance. I could easily have been convinced to let this draft go if any editor had actually given a logical reason as to why I should, rather than saying one reason, have that reason be proven wrong, and instead of conceding that they were in the wrong - they grab something completely irrelevant to the discussion out of thin air just to shut down the draft again.

There's no point being stuck in that loop as I don't get any constructive feedback from anyone - and they either ignore evidence that disproves their reasoning for rejecting the draft or just downright lie about the subject matter. Given how absolutely ludicrous the "porn star" reason was, I can only imagine it came from misogynistic opinions and that you'd say a female Norwegian politician or athlete would hold no relevance for an article on Wikipedia as, obviously, being female - they'd be porn stars, not notable personalities.

All that said, I have realised this is where I throw in the towel. There's no point. Instead of contributing to raising the accessability of information for the public with my time - I am wasting it trying to reason with people that made up their mind about the subject matter ages ago and won't be convinced otherwise. You've lost out on someone that wanted to be a part of this community and had both time and motivation to improve with time. Congratulations. Kaizero (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amalie Olufsen (September 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:  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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amalie Olufsen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)