User talk:KentuckyPony

Welcome![edit]

Hi KentuckyPony! I noticed your contributions to Herschend Family Entertainment and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Tristario (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, have a look at WP:MINOR, generally if an edit changes the meaning of something (even if it's just a single word) it shouldn't be marked as minor Tristario (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know.

Also how do I nominate this one for deletion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stites_%26_Harbison It doesn't look very worth an article to me.--KentuckyPony (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a while before I started nominating articles for deletion. You can read through WP:AFD which explains the process and what valid grounds for deletion are. When I've nominated articles for deletion I've used WP:TWINKLE, which is quite a useful and easy to use gadget you can enable in your settings, and makes doing it more straightforward (you would need to wait four days from your account creation to use twinkle though, since it requires you to be autoconfirmed, I'd recommend waiting for that since twinkle makes it much easier)

In this case you'd want to check whether the topic of the article meets WP:ORG, which is a fairly long page, but it ultimately comes down to whether the subject has significant, non trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. If you can't find that, then you'd use twinkle to nominate the article for deletion, and in the reason explain that the article fails WP:ORG, and that you've been unable to find sufficient coverage of it to indicate notability Tristario (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, that sounds too complicated.--KentuckyPony (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Things on wikipedia can seem complicated at first, which is why it's a good idea to just start with simpler things and eventually you'll understand how things work better Tristario (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just that. Wikipedia is covering up the shady practices of the company that hurt my grandaughter! Nothing makes sense! One said it wasn't notable but I looked on the talkpage and that decision was made before the newer recall before I could even start writing about the court case. Now some lady called Liz deleted it even more so I can't bring back my contribution about the latest company scandal (fined for lying to the FDA). If a blocked person wrote the article about the president, would they delete the article about the president? I try to help Wikipedia but it turns out to be worth nothing anyway. Al so Wikipedia insists on calling a private ownership aquarium "public" because it is open to the public, making readers think that it's not corporate owned. I don't want to write about anything if it will just get revoked by company censors.--KentuckyPony (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend reading WP:RGW (which may or may not apply here, but it may be helpful). That article was previously deleted, and you can read about the reasons for that here. The company that I think you're talking about has a subsection in the article Sonova (and it already includes content about wrongdoing by the company), which may be an appropriate place for any content about the company. I'd also be very careful about making any accusations about covering up etc. Such accusations aren't generally helpful to a constructive and collaborative environment, and they might violate wikipedia policies relating to conduct such as this or this.

It will be the case that some editors revert your changes for some reason or another, that happens to everyone, although it can be frustrating. You can follow the steps in WP:DISPUTE. Generally, if someone reverts you, you want to follow the steps in WP:BRD, that is, open a discussion on the talk page, and see if you can come to an agreement

Like I said this can all seem pretty complicated, so it can be a good idea to just take things slowly until you get the hang of it more and more Tristario (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain in the edit summary that the 2017 deletion was based on outdated information (years before more recent incidents that gave more media attention). There isn't enough space in the Sonova article to detail the whole history of the company (which used to be part of Boston Scientific, and the re-sale history of the company was a big factor in the quality issues, as described in Sadler v Advanced Bionics, a big local case) - the Advanced Bionics section would be bigger than the rest of the article. So how much am I allowed to add to the Sonova article? Will it be allowed a separate article if it gets too long? I thought the rule was that you can't edit a company page only if you work for the company (I don't, although I did work for Graeters many years ago if I need to declare that to edit them), not if you have negative experience with them. And could information about the company before it was in Sonova be in the Sonova article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyPony (talk • contribs)

I just don't understand why anybody thinks its a good idea to delete so much without discussing it. Anybody who googles the company name can find lots of press. And lots of things that weren't known in 2017 are now famous. Why is there such a hurry to bury it?

And why is there a rush to call a corporate-owned aquarium public? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyPony (talk • contribs)

There doesn't seem to be a rush, I think someone just disagreed with that particular edit, perhaps if you talked with them you could come to a compromise. I also wouldn't say there's a rush to delete it, there was a discussion to delete that article (and generally the resulting consensus of a discussion needs to be followed). I'm not sure what the exact process for undeleting an article that was deleted due to deletion discussion is, it may be possible to get the article undeleted. And you are allowed to edit a company's page if you've had a negative experience with them, it's just something to keep in mind, you still want to try to edit in a neutral manner even if that is the case. As for how much you can add to the Sonova article - I'm not sure, it depends on WP:WEIGHT. As for whether you can add content from before they were part of Sonova - I'm also not sure about that, that's a good question. You may be able to find answers for some of the questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE. This is all getting into some tricky territory which I don't fully understand either --Tristario (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to talk to the people but Liz hasn't responded to my question and the talkpage of the article is now gone! Nobody wants to discuss, everyone just wants to delete delete delete! I'm not even sure if it's alright for me to edit articles about the 108, since I am Catholic and part Polish. Will those articles be deleted too if I edit them?--KentuckyPony (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being catholic and part polish isn't a conflict of interest (although as always you want to try to edit things in a neutral manner). Those won't be deleted for you editing them, unless there happens to be a legitimate reason to delete them (but I think that's probably unlikely for most of those articles) Tristario (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, KentuckyPony. Thank you for your work on Maria Klemensa Staszewska. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Loved the new Henry Kaczorowski page. Hope we can find more information on him. Thanks for a great article! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bogumiła Noiszewska (March 17)[edit]

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

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 comment the reviewer left was:

2nd paragraph largely unsourced as far as I can see, more ref's needed for notability potentially

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:Bogumiła Noiszewska 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.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KentuckyPony! 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! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Advanced Bionics (May 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by S0091 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Article repeated deleted.

S0091 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:PlanespotterA320 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PlanespotterA320. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]