User talk:JackHatfield80

Welcome!

Hello, JackHatfield80, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited was Draft:Jackie "Jack" Lee Hatfield Jr., which appears to be an article about yourself. Writing about yourself is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians.

As this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. We require individuals to meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person to accept articles about them. A page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to or change it, please propose the changes on its talk page.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! QEnigma talk 06:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jackie "Jack" Lee Hatfield Jr. (February 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by QEnigma were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Structured as an autobiography. A WP:COI may exist.

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:Jackie "Jack" Lee Hatfield Jr. 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

QEnigma talk 06:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JackHatfield80! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! QEnigma talk 06:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Jackie "Jack" Lee Hatfield Jr.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Jackie "Jack" Lee Hatfield Jr., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleting administrator. QEnigma talk 06:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi JackHatfield80,

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia! :) I'm one of the administrators (or 'sysops') here at the English Wikipedia. I wanted to come by to give you a few pointers to help you get started on your Wikipedia editing, if that's okay. (This is going to be a big chunk of info, so you may want to get yourself a cup of coffee!)

Conflicts of interest (COI): whenever you're editing on a subject with which you have an external ('IRL') relationship, this can give rise to a COI. It's difficult to say exactly what constitutes a COI, because the list is potentially endless and some cases aren't clear-cut, but examples would include your family members, employer, anyone you have a business relationship with (partner, supplier, competitor, etc.), organisations you're involved with, etc. I can see that you've already disclosed a COI on your user page, and I thank you for that. You should probably also make a similar disclosure regarding Hatfield–McCoy feud. Note that while you're free to edit on topics in which you have COI in the draft space, you should not edit published articles in the actual encyclopaedia, but should instead make edit requests via the article talk page (which you can do in a few different ways, the easiest of which is the wizard at WP:ERW).
Autobiographies: one special type of COI is when you're writing about yourself. For that reason, and many others besides, we strongly discourage autobiographies; see WP:AUTOBIO. While it's not technically forbidden, my advice would be to avoid it entirely. In that sense we're totally different from eg. LinkedIn: there you're expected to be writing about yourself; here you're very much expected not to do that. If you're genuinely notable (see next point), someone else may one day write about you.
Notability: in any case, we only publish articles on subjects which are considered notable. In most cases this means that multiple secondary sources (such as print or broadcast media outlets) which are reliable and independent, have on their own initiative provided significant coverage of the subject (see the notability guideline WP:GNG for more on this). A Wikipedia article then merely summarises what those sources have said; no more, no less. If such sources don't exist, then it isn't possible to summarise their coverage, and it isn't therefore possible to create a Wikipedia article on the subject.
Verifiability: when summarising sources, each source is cited (see WP:REFB) against the information it has provided; that way readers can see where the info came from, and check its veracity if needed. Anything that doesn't come from a reliable source, shouldn't go into an article, no matter how 'true' it may be. A somewhat silly example: I know the birth date of my dog with 100% accuracy, but I couldn't mention it (not that there is an article on my dog, but hypothetically!) in a Wikipedia article because this piece of information hasn't appeared in any published source, and therefore I couldn't support that statement with a citation.
Creating articles: drawing the above points together, here's the basic process by which a new article is created. You first find a few (say, 3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and identify their salient points regarding the subject in question. You summarise them (in your own words, while avoiding any personal commentary or undue embellishment), citing each source against the information it has provided, and weave the whole thing into a coherent narrative. This gives you the appropriate content, required referencing, and necessary evidence of notability, all at once. (You may then supplement this information with small amounts of content from primary sources, such as the subject's own website, but this must be kept to purely factual, non-contentious information only, and must only ever amount to a relatively small proportion of the total content.)

So there, a quick crash course on Wikipedia editing and article creation! :) All that being said, my advice would be to spend some time just browsing existing articles, seeing how they're written and laid out, to get familiar with typical article style and tone. Then, start by making small edits to existing articles, maybe even adding a whole section here and there, before trying your hand at actually creating an article from scratch. There's a lot to learn, and it can be quite a task to get your head around all the policies and guidelines, but you'll get there. If and when you have questions or problems, you can bring them to the Teahouse or Help desk.

Good luck, and happy editing! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]