User talk:Alanlammiman

Welcome!
Hi Alanlammiman! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 20:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response on the other page, it is helpful to understand how Wikipedia works in practice. I did cite multiple sources - G1 (ie Globo) and UOL (ie Folha) which are two of the largest media groups in Brazil, and I have actually spent quite a bit of time (days, in fact) reading the guidelines. Presumably I'm a bit dim, because I continue not to understand what's missing, even after your message, though I don't doubt that there is something there, and at this stage I really don't want to argue the point. Frankly, I really don't think I'll be contributing, at least for now, even though I really admire the spirit of the project and respect those who do contribute - no point in doing so if the contributions are going to be reverted, if it's not clear to me why and how to fix it, and if it's going to be a bother to those who have contributed for longer. Cheers and all the best!

Goodbye : (
Hi - after reading *lots* of WP over the past 20 years and really loving it, something clicked and I decided to try my hand at contributing in mid 2021.

- I knew from the start that this is not just a website but an 'institution' with its own history, quirks, etc. So I spent several hours per day for several days reading the guidelines and browsing talk pages and reading about how WP works. Read up on its history, listened to talks by Jimmy Wales & the recently departed CEO, even looked through the strategic plan and financial statements.

- I had read that many new editors are frustrated, so I started small. My first edit was a trivial addition to an article about Pamonhas (a Brazilian snack), mentioning the jingles pamonha street-vendors play, as one was parked outside my window driving me crazy at the time. Either that was fine, or no-one cares.

- My second edit was when I happened to see an article in the news about one of my former university professors, who is now a director of the Brazilian Central Bank (ie. sits on the Brazilian equivalent of the US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve), looked him up here to see what he had been up to and was surprised to see there was nothing. I figured this would be a great opportunity to try my first page creation on a topic that would be uncontroversial (a high ranking public official whose existence can be easily verified, but not an elected politician likely to inspire hordes of trolls) but that would also actually be looked at (an article by a new editor on a living person). Wrote something like a 3 sentence article with a couple of citations of major Brazilian media articles about his confirmation by the Brazilian senate and the upcoming end of his term. It was deleted in about 1 day saying he wasn't 'notable'. I was expecting criticism, tips on correct formatting, citations, etc., but not what appeared to be a double standard - all current US FED board members are deemed worthy of voluminous articles. Imagining that this might have been an honest mistake, I posted to the help page that was provided. The response basically reiterated the rejection, that I should do more work, 'learn the trade', and that my 'accusation' of US-centrism was baseless, etc.

- The End - That was probably my last significant contribution.

Just to unpack this in case it's ever useful for anyone:

- Perhaps there is some serious fault with my article that I'm missing? If so, hours spent reading incredibly long guidelines plus two messages from other editors still don't convince me that there's anything wrong with the article. It appears the editors dismiss the subject's notability out of hand and ask that I add more citations to 'prove' his notability. That doesn't make sense because citations were provided for each statement from top Brazilian media outlets, and the citations clearly show this is a Senate-confirmed high ranking public official. More citations won't change the official's position in government, which is the basis of his notability. If the objective is to simply count links, we're better-off using Google. Now, I understand that a longer article with more citations is better, but the solution for that would be to add to the article, not delete it.

- Perhaps I can try another article? I have found the system for talking to other editors, the interface for editing (even the WYSIWYG isn't great) and the overall design of non-article pages incredibly confusing and fiddly even though I can code and use git. So I'm not keen on investing any more of my time now on esoteric markup if my edits aren't even being kept.

- Perhaps I was unlucky? I had read several people complaining about so-called deletionism and bias in the notability criterion. I didn't pre-judge - this was a test to see for myself. Perhaps it was a matter of chance, but I'm not running an academic experiment here - personal experience has confirmed my reading. Done.

- Perhaps I'm being oversensitive? It's not something I'm usually accused of. I enjoy lively discussion even when there are strong disagreements as long as they are focused on the substance on the issue at hand (e.g. well-moderated forums such as Hacker News), but not when I feel people are talking past each other. I tried to explain why this person is notable, provided the sources. There was no discussion of 'look, but this source isn't ideal because... ', or 'yes, the members of the board of the US central bank all have huge pages, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the members of the board of the Brazilian central bank should have pages, because... '. So if the discussion is not productive, and this isn't an obligation, no reason to stick around.

- Perhaps I'm giving up too quickly? I work with platforms that involve community contribution. My experience is that even when you do your very best to encourage viewers to become contributors, it's still hard. Based on this experience, I believe if WP has a decent number of editors who, faced with a first experience like this, do persist, it is only because WP draws on a massive base of 5B monthly visits.

I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia, and so I hope I'm wrong, but based on my professional experience, with a UX like this, eventually things go south. Thank you to all the contributors who jump through the hoops to add to this resource. You are amazing. Best of luck!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fabio Kanczuk (July 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AntanO 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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fabio Kanczuk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fabio Kanczuk, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Fabio_Kanczuk Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AntanO&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Fabio_Kanczuk reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ant a nO 17:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Fabio Kanczuk
Hello, Alanlammiman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fabio Kanczuk, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Fabio Kanczuk


Hello, Alanlammiman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Fabio Kanczuk".

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. 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! 06:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)