User talk:JerseyCurator23

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Mandela Effect (December 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanilla Wizard was:

The comment the reviewer left 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Mandela Effect and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:The_Mandela_Effect Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanilla_Wizard&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_Mandela_Effect reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Vanilla  Wizard  💙 03:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your username
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Draft:The Mandela Effect, and I noticed that your username, " TMEcurator ", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. Alternatively, you can just create a new account and use that for editing. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Star  Mississippi  16:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Your comment confounds me as I do not represent any company nor does my username reflect that. I made this account because I noticed Wikipedia is lacking a Mandela Effect page so TME merely stands for The Mandela Effect.  I can change it if required but I don't quite understand why that would be necessary.
 * The treatment of anything related to the Mandela Effect on this site is quite odd. TMEcurator (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role)
 * Your name clearly signifies that you are acting as a curator for the Mandela Effect. I'm not sure what you're finding odd as you've been advised where to edit the material, just that you shouldn't create a separate article. We don't need duplicate coverage of the same topic. Star   Mississippi  20:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not understand the issue with the user name. The Mandela Effect is not a company nor do I represent it in any way.  Would UFOcurator or UAPcurator be any better?  Plus, I have been advised that this topic is not banned but it is clearly being minimized. TMEcurator (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I happened to come across this page while lurking around and I felt that I should respond to these sentences: "The treatment of anything related to the Mandela Effect on this site is quite odd." and "[...] this topic is not banned but it is clearly being minimized."
 * As the editor that declined your draft, I want to weigh in on that by further articulating why your draft was declined. Wikipedia is not biased against the concept of the Mandela effect (whatever that would mean), the topic is covered quite well at False memory § Mandela effect. It is not "being minimized." The subsection at False memory already has more sources cited than your draft of a standalone article; it's just a better version of the same material.
 * Your draft was declined not because we have some odd approach to the Mandela effect or because we think the topic isn't encyclopedia-worthy, but because your draft is a worse version of the same thing. As I mentioned in my decline rationale, your draft very oddly suggests that the Mandela effect refers to something other than a false memory, despite citing sources that articulate that the Mandela effect is a type of false memory. I must ask you, because your draft doesn't answer this question: what do you think the term "Mandela effect" refers to? Clearly it differs from the definition everyone else uses. I apologize if this comes off as aggressive, but we are not the ones being weird about the Mandela effect.
 * As for potential issues with your username: please see this essay on single-purpose accounts. No, "UFO curator" would not be any better of a username, such a username would strongly suggest that the editor's objective is not to build an encyclopedia, but to advance a weird conspiratorial narrative. I don't personally have much of an issue with your username, but I would definitely have an issue with UFO curator.
 * Between that "UFO curator" comparison, the allegations of deliberate minimization, and the way you wrote your draft, I worry that your idea of what the Mandela effect is might have a conspiratorial bent to it. As I mentioned before, your draft gives the reader the impression that examples of the Mandela effect are unsolved mysteries or conspiracy theories as opposed to common misconceptions. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming this was just a product of weird phrasing and made sure to specify that I think this draft could, if improved, become a standalone article, but your conspiratorial suggestion that Wikipedia is actively trying to minimize and suppress the Mandela effect makes me strongly doubt that this page is going to be improved. I'm sorry to disappoint, but Wikipedia isn't secretly working on behalf of Fruit of the Loom to censor information about the alleged cornucopia in their logo. There is no grand narrative to explain your page not being approved. It's just that the draft wasn't as good as what readers can already find elsewhere, simple as that.
 *  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am glad to respond to you and hope none of this comes off as hostile. First of all, I do believe the Mandela Effect is a topic separate from general false memory.  False memory implies the singular, like one individual misremembering something when they're called on to give testimony.  Collective false memory is, as its name implies, a group of people differing in both experience and location remembering the same thing that is completely wrong.  This alone should make it worthy of its own standalone page separate from just false memory.
 * As for your impression that I am making this sound mysterious, well, it is mysterious and that's the point. There has been only one scientific study of the Mandela Effect and the researchers were unable to come to a conclusion as to what causes it.  That's why that study takes up a whole section in the draft.  Anyone else commenting on it is just offering commentary.  This is currently a psychological phenomenon without cause.  That is fascinating.
 * Now, before I began this endeavor, I reached out to Wikimedia to inquire about why this topic only had a couple paragraphs in a subsection of another topic. I was told the Mandela Effect wasn't banned and I could basically go ahead with this effort to create a standalone page.  So I did.  Now, I wasn't expecting the first draft to be approved, but I was hoping for suggestions and improvements that could be made so it would be approved.  Instead, I got a response from you that was dismissive of the topic and basically told me that no matter what was changed in this draft, it was staying where it was, as a tiny subsection in another topic.
 * I do not why you feel the Mandela Effect isn't as worthy of its own page as some other unusual phenomenon that have their own pages on this site. I don't know why you are singularly focused on the Fruit of the Loom logo when there is much more to it than that.  But I do know that if you feel this way, nothing I have said or would say could convince you otherwise.  You do not believe this topic worthy of its own page, and you have the power to make sure it stays that way.
 * I would love to be able to work with you or someone else on this website to improve the page. If you don't like certain sources or certain sentences, then I would not have any issue removing them.  This was meant to be a work in progress.  But if Mandela Effect is forever mandated to be a few sentences on some other page, then I will split and that will be that. TMEcurator (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an astounding disconnect between what I say and what you think I believe demonstrated by quotes like "dismissive of the topic and basically told me that no matter what was changed in this draft, it was staying where it was, as a tiny subsection in another topic.", "nothing I have said or would say could convince you otherwise. You do not believe this topic worthy of its own page, and you have the power to make sure it stays that way.", "Mandela Effect is forever mandated to be a few sentences on some other page", etc.
 * I'm sorry, but I truly don't understand where you got any of that from anything that I've said. Between the comment I left when declining the draft and the comment I have provided to you above, I don't know where you got the idea that I believe the Mandela effect is an unsuitable topic that will never be worthy of its own article. I started my comments with "While it may be possible that the subject could be worthy of a standalone article at some point in the future [...]". I reiterated again and again that I think the topic could become its own article if specific issues were addressed and the page becomes a better alternative to the Mandela effect subsection of False memory. I went into detail explaining what I thought the areas for improvement were (which, again, were the sourcing and the framing; the Mandela effect subsection of False memory has more sources than the draft and is better written with clearer language). In order for the page to be split off from the article where it's currently being covered, it will simply need to be a better version of it.
 * This will be my last comment on this as I think we're having a difficult time communicating effectively — your reading of my comments is so dissimilar to what I said that I cannot make sense of it — but I hope you will nevertheless be able to take the feedback you've received and use it to make improvements to the page so that it can one day become a standalone article. I hope that the miscommunication we've had in this back-and-forth will not discourage you from continuing to work on the page.
 *  Vanilla <b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 03:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe I found the lack of specificity in your initial comment as what has led to this apparent miscommunication. From an editing standpoint, I would want to know which paragraphs were problematic and which sources weren't up to snuff.  For the most part, I think the sources are mainstream, so I'd like to know which need to be replaced.  None of this was mentioned.  Plus, the generic "at some point in the future" message seems intentionally vague.
 * I'm not altogether familiar with editing Wikipedia, as you may have noticed, so I would have also appreciated someone or some group to collaborate with. Isn't that the point of these pages?
 * I'm not sure if I'm going to keep going at this one on my own, but if I do, I will ask to have my name changed as I can see why it would violate the single-purpose account rule.
 * Until we cross paths again. TMEcurator (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Mandela Effect (February 18)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

The comment the reviewer left 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Mandela Effect and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:The_Mandela_Effect Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:The_Mandela_Effect reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)