User talk:Patnovak

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Patnovak, 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:

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Western values[edit]

You have blanked the page. If you want it to be removed, please ask for removal.Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Patnovak: Can I suggest working on this page at Draft:Western values instead? In its current form this is a big essay, but it does have some potential to become a decent Wikipedia article. For that, it will need to be shorter, factual, and free of personal opinion or original research. If you place it in draft-space, or even in your personal sandbox, you are less likely to be disturbed while working on it. I hope that helps. Brad v 13:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion.Patnovak (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I've noticed your (now blanked) draft at [1]. First, thank you for your contributions. Second, I want to note that I don't think it should have been blanked without a proper discussion, through it does seem that three other editors have supported blanking through their action (@Staszek Lem, Bradv, and RHaworth:. Personally I think it should've seen a proper deletion discussion at WP:AFD, and you can still ask for such a review through WP:UNDELETE. Formatting-wise, you should certainly delete the un-Wikipedia style 'Key Values' lists at the end of your sections. The three editors who blanked your essay noted that it is 1) too WP:ESSAY-like - I don't think so, through some minor fixes in style could help (like referring to 'our values'),and 2) that it is too original research-like. That's more serious of a concern, but your article seems well references and I don't see red flags like 'in my opinion, my research has shown, etc.'. Therefore, I dissent from my three colleagues that have blanked your work, and strongly encourage you to go to the undelete page and ask for a proper review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will take your advice, make some changes and place in draft-space as earlier comment suggested.Patnovak (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on proposed article. I have now queried the deletion on wp:delete, revised the article as per comments and posted revised article on Draft:western values. Further comments would be appreciated on that talk pagePatnovak (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you were quite unfairly treated, I've explained why at Undelete page. Draft is a bad place to be - you have to wait several weeks if not months for someone to bother with it (it is very backlogged), and then you get a random reviewer luck. You should and have the right to have your article visible in mainspace right now, and for a proper deletion discussion involving proper discussion if someone is unhapp with it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtues (number and structure) resulted in delete, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relation (history of concept) ‎ in keep decision. Goes to show Wikipedia's inconsistency. You can of course recover any deleted article through undelete request, and have it userfied or draftified. Sorry for the trouble, but as you can see, publishing on Wikipedia is also subject to peer review, just like academic works (albeit our peer review is public and full of amateours, but frankly, I think it is simply just as ~~good~~bad as traditional one :P). I hope you won't be discouraged from participating in this project, but understanding WP:OR and why we should rely on secondary, not primary sources, is key in understanding a difference in publishing in regular academic press and on Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me any questions on my page and I'll be happy to help! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]