Danceislife2021

Danceislife2021, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Danceislife2021! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Larry Kosilla

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 Larry Kosilla, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DMySon (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Danceislife2021! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Feedback Welcome for 1st Draft Article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to Larry Kosilla

I think that I need to explain to you why your recreation of this article is problematic. There may be a simple explanation or I may have misunderstood, but so far your comments during the deletion review have been somewhat contradictory. You initially said that you "pulled some information and prose from previously deleted version". Later you said "I stand by all the words of my article being my own. I did not pull any text from another article. I pulled "information and sources" as I stated above well into my drafting of the article." However, the deleted article would not have been visible to you as a new user, so this doesn't add up.

It is not a crime to have two accounts on Wikipedia, but there needs to be a good reason for it. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses. If you are the same person as User:J.walker203, now is the time to admit to that. Deb (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Deb as stated before, I accessed the previously deleted page well into my drafting of the article. I can literally click on the those versions right now as I did previously. I used sources and formatting as a guide but also used different bio's like Doug Demuro as a formatting reference for my article. As a relatively new contributor, it was helpful to see how this information was presented. Again, I can see that there are passages of both articles that are alike, but I merely thought that was good form. Like the introduction of the page being "Subject is most known for a... b.... and c.... From what I've seen, formatting is shared quite a lot across Wikipedia. I'm more than happy to edit the article further if it's undeleted. But I assure you, there's no foul play here. As a new user, I can admit to being unfamiliar with Wikipedia and perhaps using these articles too closely as a guide. I'm more than happy to correct the work and do believe the sources and information is worthy of inclusion. Danceislife2021 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You can see the old versions now because the article was undeleted when you asked for a deletion review. You should not be able to see the versions prior to 30 October. Deb (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Deb, When I looked up subject's name to begin drafting article, previous version was deleted but the page history was accessible. Frankly, this line of questioning is absurd and implies that I did not write my article which is untrue. I used new sources and brought new information to light that did not exist previously. While I used some of the same sources and formatting, it's clearly irrelevant to the new article I published. The bias against my article is palpable and the attempt to paint it in a poor light is bad form. As a new contributor to Wikipedia, quite disappointed in the flawed deletion of the article and now this negative inquiry. I have nothing else to debate in this matter as clearly there's no reasoning here. Good day Danceislife2021 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Take one more look at this comparison: [1] Are you insistent that you didn't copy this almost word-for-word from the deleted version? I have to say I feel it's pretty conclusive. Deb (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Deb welcome to your opinion but I feel the information is similar only because that's what's widely available on the web. The first article is certainly promotional while mine is completely neutral and factual in it's presentation. There's clearly a far different intent. You're also NOT showing the FINAL published article which is disingenuous and misleading to other users. You're showing an earlier draft version which is not representative of the final published article and therefore is irrelevant as drafts aren't a published page. Your misguided attempt to paint my article in a bad light by using a draft version as a comparison is disrespectful. You should reevaluate your bias and intentions in this matter. Danceislife2021 (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)