User talk:Checko~enwiki

October 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. -- Craigtalbert 02:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. -- Craigtalbert 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Email
Checko - I sent you an email awhile back and haven't gotten a response yet. I don't know if it went through or not. Pasting it here just in case it got lost.

Hi Checko,

Thank you for contacting me about the Nicotine Anonymous article. This is actually the third time I've gotten to speak with leadership in another fellowship (first was OA, second was SCA) as a result of the articles I wrote. It's been very interesting.

I know I probably seem like the bad guy removing the information you've been contributing out of the article, but please let me explain.

Wikipedia editors have developed their own kind of language to to describe the necessary guidelines for articles and content. Articles and content that don't follow said guidelines can be deleted. Wikipedians (wikipedia editors) art particularly hard on articles about groups (probably second only to articles about living people) as they try to prevent wikipedia from being used as a promotion vehicle. Many people try, and in unfortunate cases do, use as a kind if significance-validating source for non-significant people, places, and things.

The most important wikipedia term to understand when it comes to what articles stay and what articles go is "notability." When used in this context on wikipedia it means something much more definite that what it does in everyday language. Specifically, the notability of any topic that could be included in wikipedia is measured by the amount and quality of published information discussing it. One criteria necessary for an article to stay is that it demonstrates it's notability. This isn't done by talking up the importance of the topic, but citing published material when adding information to the article.

The sources used for the article also have to meet certain criteria. Whenever possible articles should use peer-reviewed sources from scholarly journals or books published by a university press. However news papers and magazines that have a reasonable reputation for fact checking can also be used. In wikipedia lingo, these are call "reliable sources."

Self-published sources (e.g. books, pamphlets or websites put together by Nicotine Anonymous) can be used in articles about the organizationed who published them (e.g. to establish certain things about Nicotine Anonymous, you can cite Nicotine Anonymous literature in the article), but also with certain restrictions. For instance, articles that use only or mostly self-published sources can be deleted, and the information from the self-published sources can't be used to cite scientific results/conclusions or to support contentious or unduly self-serving statements. In wikipedia lingo these are called "questionable sources."

Information added that doesn't cite any of it's sources, or that misrepresents it's sources, is called, somewhat euphemistically, "original research." Adding original research to an article is a cardinal sin -- *regardless of whether or not it's true.* At the end of the day, wikipedia isn't about truth as much as it's about "verifiability." People should be able to look at the same sources the authors cited when writing the article and verify that it correctly represents what was said. If high quality reliable sources are used then, this should produce high quality articles.

About six or seven months ago nearly every article about twelve-step programs on wikipedia was deleted because they consisted almost entirely of original research. I decided I would do the leg work to rewrite them with reliable sources so the same wouldn't happen again, and they would be a useful resource for people wanting to learn more about the organizations. The NicA article came around after this, but I've been watching it to make sure it doesn't degenerate in a similar way. I started to do a re-write of it, like I did for the other articles, but I haven't finished it yet, and I have been slacking off on finishing it. You can see the work in progress here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Craigtalbert/Nicotine_Anonymous

I would like to collaborate with you on the article, so long as everything is within wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigtalbert (talk • contribs) 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Checko. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Checko~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 22:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)