User talk:DanCooperPara
Your submission at Articles for creation: Eddy Kenzo (May 12)
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eddy Kenzo.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
contributions to Wikipedia!
- Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello! DanCooperPara,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!
|
- Heh! A couple weeks after I submitted this article to be reviewed, someone else posted an (as I see it and as indicated by the multiple problem notices placed on it later) apparently unreviewed and not as well prepared article. Mine was then declined when someone finally got around to looking at it on the basis of "one with this name already exists." One of the things I really dislike about Wikipedia - but not wishing to devote my life to working up through the hierarchy, have no chance at all of changing - is how if you try to do things according to the rules you tend to get spat (change the second letter) on for various minor quibbles and not allowed to proceed until everything is absolutely perfect according to the arbitrary decisions and opinions of the insiders with power, as they choose among and interpret thousands of often contradictory rules and guidelines. Yet ninety percent of what is on the site was posted without review and is largely shlock (while the other ten percent is pretty good to excellent). Sure, someone then comes along and posts a "please improve" on much of the shlock, but so what? It's still there, is never addressed by the original author or the pious reviewer (who spends their time on their own interests and telling others what to do) and is often in such poor condition that improving it would be harder and take far more time than scrapping it and starting over - which as noted here cannot be done unless I wanted to simply cut out the other person's article and paste in my own, an idea that leaves a poor taste in my mouth and would probably incite even more trouble of other kinds. Ah well, I had my exercise in editing for the first time in some years. This not being my primary interest, but just something I like to put my bit into once in a while, I am not going to spend more hours trying to make this right. If anyone else wants to pull him/herself away from her/his own editing interests and marking things for corrections that will almost certainly never be made, please feel free to do the "improvement" work on the other article yourself using my material, or delete it, or whatever you feel like. Cheers and felicitations!