70.190.172.188

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dig Down Concept / Alan B Christ (March 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eagleash were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 Draft:Dig Down Concept / Alan B Christ and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dig Down Concept / Alan B Christ, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Eagleash (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 70.190.172.188! Having an article 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! Eagleash (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Dig Down Concept / Alan B Christ, you may be blocked from editing. Eagleash (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If you tell me how much context / content the general reader {such as yourself}

will need in order to understand the information, I WOULD BE GLAD TO DO THAT,.

you know a smarter person would have wrote...There was not enough content or information for the general reader to understand the the context of the artical,..

now don't take that in the wrong context

70.190.172.188 (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Alan B Christ

April 2022

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Draft:Dig Down Concept / Alan B Christ, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

If you cannot understand why your attempts at creating an article are failing you are probably in the wrong place. You should start by reading the various links at your logged-in talk page which will help you get started with editing Wikipedia; and on that note, please do not edit whilst logged out, I.e. from IP addresses such as this, especially to disrupt the encyclopedia. The guide to creating an article is at WP:YFA; you should create a lead section describing the subject in brief general terms before going on to create subsections giving greater detail. Information must be sourced and correctly referenced per WP:REFB. You can also look at articles on similar topics to see how they are laid out and structured. The 'images' you refer to appear to be scanned pages taken from elswhere and it seems therefore may be copyrighted; they do not constitute any sort of encyclopedic item. Wikipedia cannot accept any content taken from elsewhere and doing so will also lead to the loss of editing privileges. All articles must be written in 'own words'. Eagleash (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You are a complete idiot,,The images are mine and not copyrighted.If you click on the image

you can read the artical ,it is a illistrated artical written in my own words. 70.190.172.188 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Are you saying that the images are of articles you have written? If so why can you not write a competent Wikipedia article? Where have these articles been published and under what licence? If the information has not been published anywhere (in a reliable work with appropriate editorial oversight) then it appears to be WP:OR and will not be acceptable. Wikipedia reports on what has been written about a subject in reliable sources which must be independent of the subject with references placed inline per WP:REFB.

Have you actually read any Wikipedia articles? Do any resemble the type of draft you have submitted? Have you read the guide to article creation or tried the tutorial or read *any* of the links provided to help you at your logged-in talk page? You may also like to read WP:CIR.

Summing up; you have submitted an item which does not comply with Wikipedia's standards and have become argumentative / abusive when it has been declined both here and at your logged-in page; and just to re-emphasise using multiple accounts in a non-constructive manner is not acceptable. Eagleash (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The 8 pages are not 8 different articals , they are the 8 pages of 1 artical.

There is no wiki rule that says an artical can not be within the images.

There is no wiki rule that says a cited references can not be outside of

the images.

The main claim of the article shows the reader how there is a more logical

method in building this structure using the same elevation information

of this reliable source.

Becouse I am using a the Elevation Information that is a confirmed fact,

makes the 2 references notable.

Show me how to make a source independent of the subject using references,

I'm going to bet you can't

Summing up, The article is up to wiki standards becouse there is no wiki

rules that say this format can't be used

Show me I wrong , BET YOU CAN'T.. 70.190.172.188 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just another rather silly rant along the lines of that at your logged-in talk page and which will also do nothing to get your sub-standard submission accepted into the encyclopedia. If you cannot understand what an independent source is please read that page as well as WP:RS. An example would be an article about the topic in a better quality mainstrean newspaper, a book or magazine but not your own original research. Wikipedia has a manual of style which defines how aricles (not articals) are to be written and as previously advised WP:YFA will tell how you to create an acceptable article. Have you actually read any of the multiple links with which you have been provided, both here and at other locations? Your apparent fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works indicates that you have not. If you are here just to get your own research into the encyclopedia, that is never going to succeed and if you just want to write things on the internet you would be better of with social media or one of the free web-hosing sites such as Wordpress. In short it seems clear that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and you really should stop wasting your own time and that of other Wikipedia editors. Eagleash (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

An independent source is nothing more than a publisher that is considered a standard or very good ,and you don't have to pay to publish something someone wrote. and original research is just subject matter.

This could be written by one person or many pepole will not matter.

paying to get published is non independent on the other hand you can self publish yourself and be concidered a independent source becouse you become the publisher.It is the merit of the facts the suject is based upon that

comes into question this is the reason for citing references .

Really,, reply sounds like some new superhero giving advice, and

your apparent fundamental misunderstanding 70.190.172.188 (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Stop using article talk pages as platforms for your personal views on a subject (WP:TALK). Hypnôs (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

how can you write an article in your own words and not have a personal view

on the subject . and how is the water shaft method not using the talk page as it's

own promotional platform, Tell me how this is not the truth.,and then go away Hypnos

70.190.172.188 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Alan B Christ

To edit, please log in.

Last edited:
Last edited by:

02:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
70.190.172.188 (talk · contribs)

---

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

---