Without weighing in on the specific's of Mitar's case, I think this is a
good suggestion. I created my first Wikipedia article in 2009, after I'd
been registered on the site for a few months but only had a few edits to
my name. My article was on a living musician/composer, and was,
rightfully I think, tagged for notability. It wasn't deleted though (I
did improve it with more sources), and that article is still up today.
Regardless, it would have been good for me to get more experience by
improving other articles before creating one myself. Even now, seven
years later, I don't create many new articles, preferring to work on
existing ones. Whenever I do create a new article, I always work up a
solid version, with good sources, in my userspace first.
- Pax, aka Funcrunch
On 6/27/16 12:40 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
Or may be just to emphasize again David's point. Every new editor
starting an article about a living person or an existing organization
with a not-so-obvious notability is always suspected of promotional
(payed of fan-like) editing. Always. And promotional editing is always
a red tape.
As a new editor, do not start with articles which can be thought of as
promotional. Write about history, localities, natural history, improve
existing articles. Establish your name on the project. Become an
autopatrolled. Then it is much safer to go to the areas attractive for
promotional editors.
This is not how it should be, but how it is. This is so far our only
response to promotional editing.
Cheers
Yaroslav
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
