User talk:Editingwhiz

December 2013
Hello. Your recent edit to Bishop Alemany High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. ''editing under an IP or as a registered editor does not matter. This guy is not at this point notable.'' John from Idegon (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bishop Alemany High School. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ''unreferenced additions of people without Wikipedia biographies to notable lists will always be reverted. Journalists are not inherently notable, and the winning of a non-notable award does not make them notable. A Pulitzer would, but his name would only stay in the list if you provided a reliably sourced reference to the Pulitzer win. A person must either have a Wikipedia biography or you must show enough referencing to show that he would be qualified to have one.'' John from Idegon (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

My edits to my Alma Mater's Wikipedia page are not intended to be "disruptive." There are several other alumni of Bishop Alemany who should be noted in Wikipedia but are not. Yet some minor show-business people who went to Alemany are noted. Casey Clausen never played pro football, and he's noted.

There are only a handful of people in the world -- an estimated 1,000 -- who do what I do as the editor and columnist of an independent IT publication, eWEEK.com, and I am often referred to as one of limited number of "key influencers" in the IT world. Google me.

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a community-driven project. I have always been a user and supporter, but when I try to add to it, I'm rebuffed.

Chris J. Preimesberger Editor, eWEEK.com San Francisco, Calif.


 * I thought I had pretty well explained the problem above, but apparently not. I will add a table of links so you can reference and read in detail and at your leisure some of the somewhat mysterious policies here at Wikipedia, which all were formed from community consensus.


 * You are apparently suffering from a somewhat common misunderstanding of one of the most fundamental of Wikipedia policies, that being notability. It probably does not mean what you think it means.  Notability is simply what we call our standard for inclusion.  Being included on a list of notable people has the exact same requirements as having an article on Wikipedia.  Note that the title is "Notable" people, not "Famous" people.  Notability has no direct connection with either fame or importance.  As Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is by definition, a tertiary source, we only include articles that have significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.  Hence the term "notability".  We only cover what others have made note of. It may be quite possible that the fellow you have been adding could be notable.  But in order to include him in a list of notable people, Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity requires that you show references to the kind of sources mentioned in the previous sentence.


 * We also discourage (altho we do not bar it) people writing about themselves. If you are going to do it, you will need to insure you write from a neutral point of view (very difficult for most people but being a professional journalist, maybe possible for you), and you provide those reliable independent secondary references.  If I can help you in any way, I will be happy to do so.  The technical crap here is very intimidating!  I would suggest that the best route would be to go ahead and write an article on the subject at hand (in this case, you) in a sandbox and then ask for review, either by myself or from another editor via the "Articles for Creation" process.  I will be more than happy to help you with any aspect of that, except for the research.  Find the sources and I will help you format the article in Wiki-markup and review it for notability and neutrality.  Kinda ironic, I know, since you are an editor by trade; but you are new to this and I would like to see you succeed.  Feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)