User talk:GoldbergHistory

Welcome!

Hello, GoldbergHistory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to History of North Carolina does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Accesscrawl (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abram "Abe" Piasek for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abram "Abe" Piasek is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abram "Abe" Piasek until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, People magazine is not a notability-making source in and of itself — it's not entirely invalid, but enough of its content trends in a tabloidy direction that it doesn't make a person notable all by itself if it's the only evidence of more than local coverage you can show.

Secondly, people aren't automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they were courageous or admirable in life, or because the number of people with their particular life experience happens to be declining — our notability criteria for people depend on showing evidence of distinction (winning important awards, having broad nationalized recognition, etc.), not just on verifying that they existed. A couple of pieces of local human interest coverage are not enough to hand a person an exemption from having to pass any of our notability criteria for people — if that were how it worked, we would have to keep an incredible number of articles about little-known people who had no genuine reason to belong in an encyclopedia: every local restaurateur who ever got a review in the local newspaper's food section, every high school athlete who ever got profiled on the local 6 p.m. news during his recovery from an injury, everybody who ever got into their local paper for winning a local poetry contest or a battle of the bands competition, and my mother's neighbour who got into the local papers a few years ago for finding somebody's escaped pet pig in her yard. These aren't reasons why a person would get into an encyclopedia, so they're not automatically more notable than other people just because the local media talked to them a couple of times — they would need to show much broader nationalized coverage before they had a credible claim to being special, and one article in one magazine is not enough of that.

Thirdly, if you want to make a point in a discussion, the place to do that is in the discussion, not on the user talk page of the person who initiated it. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hi GoldbergHistory! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at International Space Station that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 16:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]