User talk:Fridayldragon

Welcome!
Hello, Fridayldragon, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Fridayldragon/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
 * Article development
 * Standard layout
 * Lead section
 * The perfect article
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cahk (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Fridayldragon/sandbox


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Fridayldragon/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Reply
I think explained the process to you, so I'll concentrate on why the text was deleted.

User spaces are for hosting drafts on a temporary basis, but not for material unrelated to Wikipedia's aims. To create a real article, you need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
 * Your supposed refs were all either url links to Wikipedia articles or to pages that didn't mention Ciaotannia. References are supposed to support what you claim, not be random links.
 * Your images, rather than being real flags etc, appear to be made by you, which at least means that they are not copyright violations.
 * Your supposed nation is not recognised by any country or government, you have created its stamps yourself, and your text is entirely unsupported by the supposed references. If we can't verify any of the "facts", it's difficult to see how it's notable, or even if it exists other than on your deleted page.
 * You mentioned Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or should be deleted as well. See What about article x?. But in any case, that article has real references and plausible image rationales, rather than just being something you've made up.
 * I hope this helps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Re Ciaotannia article deletion.
 * Thanks for your reply, Jimfbleak,
 * I don't think I understood Jay's explanation. Too much jargon, and I am a Wiki virgin practically. I was expecting the article to be improved not just off-handedly deleted.
 * I've written tons of university essays and got my degrees, (Pol Sci ((Asian Studies) and never once has a professor torn up an essay of mine or given me less than B-).
 * You may have a point that I had provided slightly less authoritative references than the 'Gay and Lesbian Kingdom' article does 'to provide independent verifiable sources to meet 'the notability guidelines. But many of the GLKs references were linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, and were websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance and sites that were just reporting what were GLK claims or interviewing its management.
 * i.e. 7 of 15 of the GLK's citations were from not independent cites - gaykingdomnews, star observer, a gay on-line 'newpaper', a gay home making website, a gay travel site, and the gaykingdom website. Only the government produced 'Hansard' and the Lonely Planet book on Micronations could be called authorative and independent.
 * Defacto Borders.org is not and does not claim to be authoritative, and only has the GLK on a long list of unrecognized micronations.
 * And Judy Lattas' article in Simajournal.org (not peer reviewed, only peer referred) is just her personal rather pretentious-sounding hyper intellectual opinion (she mentions Derrida 5 times) with a lot of photos taken from the GLK website (no longer exists, i.e. has expired).
 * Your supposed refs were all either url links to Wikipedia articles or to pages that didn't mention Ciaotannia.
 * Your comment is somewhat erroneous
 * You don't mention my citation of the 442 page book 'Chernobyl, Dick “A Short History of Ciaotannia: Adult Consensual Incest and the Quest for Equal Rights, Security and Justice for Consanguinamorous, Consangs and CIAO people.” Little Dragon Publishing, Bankstown, 442 pp., 2023, IBSN 9780980562156
 * References are supposed to support what you claim, not be random links.
 * None of my links were random. They were all related to CIAO people issues, Ciao people being the people of Ciaotannia.
 * Your images, rather than being real flags etc, appear to be made by you,
 * Untrue. I did not make the Ciaotannia flag. If you did some actual fact checking, the flag was attributed to Keith Pullman... i.e., not me
 * But looking at the Wiki article about the GLK, it is obvious the writer of that article probably created much of the artwork by him or herself or
 * The GLK flag is taken from the rainbow flag.
 * The GLK map is from wikipedia commons and
 * The GLK stamp collection is "My own photo of a set of GLK postage stamps taken by me" File:GLKStamps.jpg - Wikipedia
 * which at least means that they are not copyright violations.
 * Yes they are not copyright violations, (but neither are mine). You don't seem to mind that the GLA stamps were likely manufactured by the GLA article writer. If wiki can be generous and bend the rules for the Gay and Lesbian crowd on GLA, why not for us Ciao people? New double standards?
 * Your supposed nation is not recognised by any country or government,
 * True. That is what the article states. It is the same with most micro states. Including GLA.
 * They are still states.
 * your website deleted the section about stamps. Our stamps are to be published in 2024. 2024 is not over yet. I have never printed any stamps.
 * and your text is entirely unsupported by the supposed references.
 * I don't know if you read the book mentioned in the references You appear not to have:
 * The book ‘A Short History of Ciaotannia: Adult Consensual Incest and the Quest for Equal Rights, Security and Justice for Consanguinamorous, Consangs and CIAO people.’ outlines the causes for the establishment of Ciaotannia.
 * You can verify the book on Google.
 * A Short History of Ciaotannia - Dick Chernobyl - Google Books
 * - Catalogue | National Library of Australia Search Results (nla.gov.au)
 * If we can't verify any of the "facts", it's difficult to see how it's notable, or even if it exists other than on your deleted page.
 * You mentioned Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands.
 * Yes, I did. My article said it was inspired by that. "Similarly, that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable."
 * The fact that the GLK article was accepted after all the supposed strict adherence to Wiki so-called 'policies and goals' but has not been deleted in all these years, but you deleted my article before it is even published, suggest a certain amount of 'double think' and double face going on.
 * Next you will be saying we are not professional encyclopedists and we must pay Wiki experts to write essays for us.
 * The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or should be deleted as well. See What about article x?. But in any case, that article has real references and plausible image rationales, rather than just being something, you've made up.
 * Yes, it has a few real references... Not many. But they are far less in- depth or authoritative than mine. Yes, the LBGT people made some websites, and made a video about a holiday trip to an island off the coast of Australia. Anyone can post a video on Youtube and post a few snap shots of a letterbox, stamps. Anyone can write an article and get it posted on-line somewhere.
 * I am not sure what you meant by 'plausible image rationales.'
 * Sorry about the lengthy grumble, Jimfbleak. After taking weeks to write the article I was annoyed that it failed this very competitive competition.
 * I am very, very sorry that I did not come up to your personal expectations.
 * Looking at 'What about article x' I notied this:
 * Article quality[edit source]
 * Shortcut
 * WP:AQU
 * Myth: I see a problem with an article. It is poorly written, has no references, is full of original research, and I do not believe it is even notable. Therefore, I should go ahead and propose it for deletion.
 * Fact: It is better to attempt to salvage a potentially viable article as best as the Wikipedia community can before putting it up for deletion. A better alternative is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made. Even if they are not made promptly or within a few days, weeks, months, or even years, there is still that glimmer of hope the article can be improved in the future. Many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. See WP:BEFORE to know what should be done before an article can be put up for deletion.
 * Best wishes
 * - Catalogue | National Library of Australia Search Results (nla.gov.au)
 * If we can't verify any of the "facts", it's difficult to see how it's notable, or even if it exists other than on your deleted page.
 * You mentioned Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands.
 * Yes, I did. My article said it was inspired by that. "Similarly, that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable."
 * The fact that the GLK article was accepted after all the supposed strict adherence to Wiki so-called 'policies and goals' but has not been deleted in all these years, but you deleted my article before it is even published, suggest a certain amount of 'double think' and double face going on.
 * Next you will be saying we are not professional encyclopedists and we must pay Wiki experts to write essays for us.
 * The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or should be deleted as well. See What about article x?. But in any case, that article has real references and plausible image rationales, rather than just being something, you've made up.
 * Yes, it has a few real references... Not many. But they are far less in- depth or authoritative than mine. Yes, the LBGT people made some websites, and made a video about a holiday trip to an island off the coast of Australia. Anyone can post a video on Youtube and post a few snap shots of a letterbox, stamps. Anyone can write an article and get it posted on-line somewhere.
 * I am not sure what you meant by 'plausible image rationales.'
 * Sorry about the lengthy grumble, Jimfbleak. After taking weeks to write the article I was annoyed that it failed this very competitive competition.
 * I am very, very sorry that I did not come up to your personal expectations.
 * Looking at 'What about article x' I notied this:
 * Article quality[edit source]
 * Shortcut
 * WP:AQU
 * Myth: I see a problem with an article. It is poorly written, has no references, is full of original research, and I do not believe it is even notable. Therefore, I should go ahead and propose it for deletion.
 * Fact: It is better to attempt to salvage a potentially viable article as best as the Wikipedia community can before putting it up for deletion. A better alternative is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made. Even if they are not made promptly or within a few days, weeks, months, or even years, there is still that glimmer of hope the article can be improved in the future. Many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. See WP:BEFORE to know what should be done before an article can be put up for deletion.
 * Best wishes
 * Looking at 'What about article x' I notied this:
 * Article quality[edit source]
 * Shortcut
 * WP:AQU
 * Myth: I see a problem with an article. It is poorly written, has no references, is full of original research, and I do not believe it is even notable. Therefore, I should go ahead and propose it for deletion.
 * Fact: It is better to attempt to salvage a potentially viable article as best as the Wikipedia community can before putting it up for deletion. A better alternative is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made. Even if they are not made promptly or within a few days, weeks, months, or even years, there is still that glimmer of hope the article can be improved in the future. Many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. See WP:BEFORE to know what should be done before an article can be put up for deletion.
 * Best wishes

Fridayldragon (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fridayldragon
 * Fridayldragon (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fridayldragon (talk) 06:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)