User talk:Lunnesta8899

Welcome!
Hello, Lunnesta8899, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required. -- It is also your responsibility to provide citations to verify material, so much so that telling someone else to verify it is almost rude.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well. -- The Bible would be a primary source for claims about the Bible.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, "I am not letting it go" is not a good attitude for this site. We're built on collaboration, not stubbornness. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft
I moved Eiko Yanami into draft space ,it's not ready to go live. Undo me if you wish. Good luck and welcome !!!>JC7V -constructive zone  01:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Joanna Stevens Gaines. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

How to write articles that don't get rejected
If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything that is not you or something you are connected to, here are the steps you should follow:
 * 1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
 * 2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this.  Also, while search engine resutls are tnot sources, they are where you can find sources.  Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.
 * 3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
 * 4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.  Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.
 * 5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
 * 6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
 * 8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion.

If you are writing about yourself, or someone or something you are connected with (such as a friend, family member, or your business), the following steps are different:
 * 1) If the subject really was notable, you wouldn't need to write the article. Remember that articles are owned by the Wikipedia community as a whole, not the article subject or the article author.  If you do not want other people to write about you, then starting an article about yourself is a bad idea.
 * 8a) If the article is accepted, never edit it again. Instead, make edit requests on the article's talk page.
 * 8b) If the article is rejected, there will be a reason given. Read it carefully and closely.  If there are links in the reason, open them and read those pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:International Center for Clubhouse Development concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:International Center for Clubhouse Development, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:International Center for Clubhouse Development


Hello, Lunnesta8899. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "International Center for Clubhouse Development".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DannyS712 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Zodiac (Astrology)
Hi I reverted your edit on the Zodiac page because it had so many grammatical errors that I couldn't understand it. I think you were suggesting that Astrology is an example of obsolete scientific thinking that predates the modern scientific method. If that is the case then I completely agree. I could probably take your edit and knock it into shape but then it would be MY contribution and I prefer to see YOU formulating YOUR own ideas. Best Wishes OrewaTel (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you can edit my contribution into what seems to be grammatically correct to you, sir. Lunnesta8899 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Center for Clubhouse Development


A tag has been placed on International Center for Clubhouse Development requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Embassy of Afghanistan, Washington, D.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fall of Kabul. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Matthias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Issus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)