Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 November 20

= November 20 =

08:30:47, 20 November 2022 review of submission by 2A02:587:8B03:4600:6547:4CB5:D477:265A
2A02:587:8B03:4600:6547:4CB5:D477:265A (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is editing,only can have!
 * You don't really ask a question, but what you wrote is completely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

14:06:53, 20 November 2022 review of submission by JOSEPH CARRARO
You have responded to the "decline" of a page I submitted that is equivalent to pages that have been submitted on my behalf recently due what is not considered as "notable" posts that have been continually vandalized for years. Mention is made of postS made "In paasing" as if they are not substantial enough to warrant meNtion. Just one example is a reference to "Katrina Resolution" which at the time was passed by the Louisiana Legislature on my behalf that was stated as the only resoLution passed by the Senate recognizing an individual. The problem is that I did not have a press conference or advertise in media my accomplishment but does not take away that it is real. JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not copy the contents of a declaration to this page. No one doubts it is real, but Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a person. If no independent sources write about something, it can't be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves and their accomplishments. If you were a state legislator, are there not independent sources about you? 331dot (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How absurd. As I stated I didn't inform the world of my accomplishments I was taking the time to provide absolute truth so when a disaster strikes someone oijows they can contact me. But you will continue to vandalize my account to diminish my work on behalf of others. That's what Wikipedias's become.  Don't need to spend anymore time with you--since that's how you choose to spend your time and life.


 * DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE WIKIPEDIA MAZE YOU HAVWE SET UP SO NOTHING GETS DONE
 * How absurd . As I stated I didn't inform the world of my accomplishments I was taking the time to provide absolute truth so when a disaster strikes someone oijows they can contact me. But you will continue to vandalize my account to diminish my work on behalf of others. That's what Wikipedias's become. Don't need to spend anymore time with you--since that's how you choose to spend your time and life.


 * JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @JOSEPH CARRARO: it's a bit difficult to understand what you're trying to say, but I would ask that you try to remain civil and constructive.
 * And please don't start a new thread with each comment; you can simply reply to the previous one.
 * Now, did you have an actual question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that this user decided to create a article within my userpage. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that, @Pizzaplayer219. An interesting approach. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So if something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media then that is okay with Wikipedia, whereas something that can be proven true but that I did care to hold a press conference about, is not allowed, seems to indicate the real absurdity of Wikipedia does it not? And shouldn't that be exposed to the public? JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I can summarise: "Because you won't let me use this encyclopaedia for a purpose it was never intended to serve I'm going to be passive-aggressive in an attempt to make you feel bad." I've been seeing arguments along this line of thought a lot recently, and it's getting fucking old. Know your audience and your venue. —Jéské Couriano  v^&lowbar;^v  a little blue Bori 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: Article Joseph Carraro already exists! -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And it has been the target of some promotional editing by UPE socks in the past – I suspect that when the OP says that WP editors vandalize my account they mean that uninvolved WP editors have removed the promotionalism from the article about Carraro. --bonadea contributions talk 09:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IS IT PROMOTIONAL IF IT'S NOTABLE AND TRUE?
 * You have responded to the "decline" of a page I submitted that is equivalent to pages that have been submitted on my behalf recently due what is not considered as "notable" posts that have been continually vandalized for years. Mention is made of postS made "In paasing" as if they are not substantial enough to warrant meNtion.  Just one example is a reference to "Katrina Resolution" which at the time was passed by the Louisiana Legislature on my behalf  that was stated as the only resoLution passed by the Senate recognizing an individual. The problem is that I did not have a press conference or advertise in media my accomplishment but does not take away that it is real.     PART OF THE ACCOLADES OFFFERED:

First Extraordinary Session, 2005 SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 21 BY SENATOR ULLO
 * ENROLLED
 * A RESOLUTION
 * To commend Senator Joseph J. Carraro of the state of New Mexico for his relief efforts to
 * provide assistance to the state of Louisiana in its hour of greatest need during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
 * WHEREAS, Senator Joseph J. Carraro immediately recognized the severe impact
 * that Hurricane Katrina had on the resources of the state of Louisiana; and
 * WHEREAS, Senator Carraro as a member of the Energy Council understood the urgency to transport materials and supplies that would be of paramount importance to
 * Louisiana immediately following this national catastrophe; and
 * WHEREAS, Senator Carraro traveled to Baton Rouge, Louisiana to confer with
 * members of the Senate and the office of emergency preparedness to offer his considerable influence with the energy producing members of the Energy Council on which he serves with State Senator Chris Ullo of Louisiana; and
 * WHEREAS, Senator Carraro was in contact with officials of Citgo Petroleum Corporation, which had an undamaged petroleum producing plant in Louisiana to arrange for the delivery of fuel via tanker to supply the ravaged Southeast Louisiana; and
 * WHEREAS, Senator Carraro also arranged for the government of Venezuela to provide medical airborne hospital units to be provided to the devastated areas along the Louisiana and Mississippi Gulf Coast; and
 * WHEREAS, his eagerness and willingness to rush to assist our state cannot go unrecognized and must be gratefully acknowledged.
 * THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate of the Legislature of Louisiana commends Senator Joseph J. Carraro for his aid and support to Louisiana in its greatest hour of need.
 * Page 1 of 2
 * SR NO. 21 ENROLLED
 * BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that his efforts to provide fuel and medical assistance to enable our office of emergency preparedness to relieve the suffering of the citizens of Louisiana must be commended.
 * BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the New Mexico Senate President, Ben Altamirano and the Honorable Joseph J. Carraro, New Mexico State Senator.
 * PRESIDENT OF THE SEN JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not a place to just post things that are "true". In fact, we are more interested in what can be verified, see WP:TRUTH.  Wikipedia is a place to summarize independent reliable sources.  As someone who was a state legislator, was their no news coverage of this resolution at all?  If there was not, it can't be on Wikipedia- it being true is not enough. You should post this on your social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have served in a legislature. Is it really necessary to point out that resolutions, either joint or of a single house, are of no value as reliable sources, and are not noteworthy in and of themselves?? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So if something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media then that is okay with Wikipedia, whereas something that can be proven true but that I did care to hold a press conference about, is not allowed, seems to indicate the real absurdity of Wikipeeia that should be exposed. JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

So if something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media, then that is okay with Wikipedia, whereas something that can be proven true but that I did care to hold a press conference about, is not allowed, seems to indicate the real absurdity of Wikipedia does it not? And shouldn't that be exposed to the public? JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's not accurate at all. Sir, if you are interested in an actual civil conversation about what Wikipedia is for, I'm happy to discuss it with you. If you just want to rant about how you cannot use Wikipedia as your personal social media, you will have to do that somewhere else. What you tell the public is, of course, up to you, but if you aren't interested in working with us, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * not a rant as what you use to argue, it is an obvious, factual statement as to what Wikipedia stands for:
 * So if something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media then that is okay with Wikipedia, whereas something that can be proven true but that I did not care to hold a press conference about, is not allowed, seems to indicate the real absurdity of Wikipedia does it not? And shouldn't that be exposed to the public? JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @JOSEPH CARRARO: Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and notability are on public record, and have been for quite some time; I'm not sure there is all that much to 'expose'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * then you have nothing to worry about JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you find "something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media" on Wikipedia please let us know, so that it can be corrected. If you wish to add content to the article about you, there is a very simple process you can submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the request edit template and of course a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So you believe that everything that the media verifies is true and what I verify as true is a falsehood? Do you think that I volunteer at disasters to make up awards and thanks and resolutions or have a press conference to pat myself on the back for lives saved, or further disasters averted due to actions that would be considered notable since no other person did what I did? And only two of my ventures were chosen because they were related to how trust and friendships from the political arena helped resolve desperate needs. Interestingly an article about me from National Geographic Alsop was also excluded. So for years someone else has been rewriting my Wikipedia page expressing what they want--the Wikipedia gods -- is that done with every account? You are right -- people need to be aware what goes on, especially before contributing to a playground of riddled with misinformation. JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sir, if there is misinformation present here that you are aware of, we are happy to work on it if you tell us what it is. If media outlets are telling blatant lies to the point where a source should be banned from Wikipedia use(as WP:DAILYMAIL is), there is a forum for that sort of discussion.
 * It is not "your page", but an article about you, no different than the New York Times writing about you. You've been told how you can request changes to it, and what the requirements are for those changes. You may either participate with us, or not. And please don't duplicate your postings. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

15:46:26, 20 November 2022 review of submission by Cyberf1
Cyberf1 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Cyberf1: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

23:17:13, 20 November 2022 review of submission by Darth-Wiki-Man
Darth-Wiki-Man (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Darth-Wiki-Man Welcome to the AfC Help Desk. The draft is not notable for Wikipedia, and has been rejected, meaning you can not submit it again. You may want to add some of the pages content to the existing article, 4 World Trade Center. Thanks, echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  01:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)