User talk:Wordsighn

This user may have left Wikipedia. Wordsighn has not edited Wikipedia since 24 August 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Note about the Teahouse

Wordsighn, I'm glad to see you went to the Teahouse, but please put your question on the Wikipedia:Teahouse page, which is for asking questions about Wikipedia. Not on Wikipedia talk:Teahouse, which is just for discussing how the Teahouse works. In my opinion, too, it would be a good idea to ask about what you can do at Wikipedia. You know, besides asking about your userpage, which is only one detail. Bishonen | talk 15:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Since you recently went to Wikipedia:Teahouse, so I thought you might not have visited the your Wikipedia Adventure. It is a really helpful link to learn a lot about how things work in wikipedia in an hour. It has visual guidelines to make it easy for you to learn, even though it does not have details about improving your userpage so it might be a digressing from the topic, yet I think it might be helpful in other areas. That is unless you took it earlier already. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Ah. I see the problem now. One of the few extra rules that I mentioned in the reply on my talk, is that Wikipedia shouldn't be used for advertising. For example, it would to OK for your userpage to say:

Hey! My name is Wordsighn and I love books. I'm a member of WikiProject:Books, and most of the articles I edit are related to fiction. Some of my favorite books are:

The Maze runner series

The mortgage doctrine series

Harry potter

And the spirit animals series.

This user participates in
WikiProject Books.

But it's not okay for your userpage to say:

Hey! My name is Wordsighn and I have a youtube channel that you should watch where I review books, and I also have a blog that you should see at wordsighn.com.

The first one is related to why you are on Wikipedia. The second one looks like you are using Wikipedia for advertising. Hopefully this helps to clear things up. Sorry for the confusion. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wordsighn (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 78.26 was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see WP:NOTHOWTO.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Wordsighn/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wordsighn, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No change - no point in just re-submitting

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Wordsighn/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I can give you some tips. Wikipedia's vision is a world where every person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That certainly ought to include the best way to show a pig. However, there's a problem: how can we tell if what is written is true or false? We only want to pass on knowledge that's true, of course. So we've invented a way of checking what is written. The rule that we've agreed is that we will only write things in articles that has already been published by someone who has been proven to be trustworthy. We call those reliable sources. That might be a medical journal like the Lancet, or a book from a big publishing company like Doubleday, or the website of a good newspaper like The Times. What we do is to summarise those reliable sources in our own words and put that in the article – then we add a note (called a reference or citation) that tells everybody where we read the information that we're writing about. The idea is that somebody else could find the same source and check what we wrote was true.

So if you want to write about showing pigs, you'll need to find where somebody reliable published information about showing pigs. That will really have to be more than just instructions like "keep eye contact with the judge". You want to be writing about where pigs are shown; about the history of pig shows; about champion pigs (if any); and about famous pig-breeders. There's a lot of work to do and a lot of information to collect before you start writing an article. I hope you'll give it a try, though. It's hard work, but very worthwhile when it's done. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have had experience with pig raising and showing that is why I wrote that so others would not be unprepared . Wordsighn (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound stingy don't get me wrong Wordsighn (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in 4H that is where I learned this Wordsighn (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wordsighn. It's great that you learned about pig raising and showing in 4H. One of the pillars of Wikipedia, however, is that it is not the place for editors to write from their own experience. Instead, articles must cite reliable, published sources, as RexxS described. Another pillar is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide.

If you want to write about how to raise and show pigs, consider an alternative outlet. For example, WikiHow is another wiki, unrelated to Wikipedia, that has articles How to Raise Pigs and How to Show Your Pigs that you might be able to improve.

Wikipedia is only the right place if you want to write encyclopedia articles, which may be a very different type of writing than you envisioned. If you want to see the sort of work being done on encyclopedia articles about agriculture, including livestock, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for the advice ! Wordsighn (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another

Merry
Rexxmas

--RexxS (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

Happy new year to all! Wordsighn (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about

I am stuck and can't find a way to delete uploads . Please someone help . Wordsighn (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MAZE RUNNER .

The movie THE MAZE RUNNER is not like the the book ...of course almost all the movies that are based on a book are not like the books . Producers seem to think they need to change the movie a bit. As we move on to the sequel to THE MAZE RUNNER , THE SCORCH TRIALS . .. It is not like the book at all! Very disappointing . ... Wordsighn (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey i can use some help. Wordsighn (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to do? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am try to be able to change my user page but it will not let me all it does is select the whole thing .all I can do is delete it. Wordsighn (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you tried to do a bit of work improving the encyclopedia you would start to pick up some editing skills which would help you edit your user page. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks will do!☺ Wordsighn (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Pig raising and showing

Hello, Wordsighn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pig raising and showing".

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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]