Wikipedia (Josve05a)

My deepest condolences go out to his family, loved ones, and his fans. It is never fun to see someone you know and cherish pass away. We can always remember him for the life he lived, and the legacy he passed on. Wikipedia will try and summarize his life the best way we can using reliable sources, in order for future generations to understand a bygone era in the context that it requires. Because of this, we can't include this when describing him, since that would be faulty and be a detriment in order to let future generations know who this notable person was when looking back on this time. By time, the article about him might grow with more content and a passage that he requested those words be used to describe him could be mentioned somehow, but not in the sense this petition is requesting.

Wikipedia is a freely accessible encyclopedia (both as in free of charge, but also free to re-use and distribute in regards to copyrights) that tries to describe the history and the world around us using reliable third-party sources from a neutral point of view. It is written and maintained entirely by volunteer editors like you and me. There is no editorial board that makes decisions, everything is decided by consensus amongst editors. Therefore petitions to Wikipedia do not lead anywhere. This article in question is about the "Killing of George Floyd" and not the person "George Floyd" (we have a separate article about him https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd). In order to illustrate the actual killing, the picture in question is used. This is similar to other articles, such as e.g. "Killing of Eric Garner". While I, the one responding to this petition, is only a volunteer and cannot (shall not) speak for the rest of the editing community, but I still want to express my deepest sympathies to the family of George Floyd, and everyone else who has lost a loved one to police brutality, lack of police accountability, race inequality, and racism. #BlackLivesMatter

Dear Amanda, Everyone is free to resubmit their submission for another reviewer to review if they felt the first reviewer added personal opinions to their review. Think of it like this: Anybody, even a person with zero knowledge or someone who hates this podcast, should be able to read (and cite) third-party reliable sources and be able to piece together the cane article. If not, then the submission is either biased with opinions, own knowledge and feeling or it lacks third-party sources to back up all their claim (or omit some to just show one site of a subject). In this case I can see a lot of biased ( and ‘wheasel’) words and phrasings such as ‘hit’, and a lot of fluffy promotional text such as ‘ears and hearts of the listeners’. This is not unbiased encyclopedic content with NPOC (no point of view). And the only third-party source used is to urban dictionary, which isn’t reliable. Please read the second paragraph above in my comment. From that source I (who know zero of this subject) am not able to create an article by myself about this subject. We have over hundreds of policies and guidelines, and over hundreds of artyicle submissions a day (from new and unregistered users). So, we apply a hard standard to them. If you have found a similarly written article, that just means it haven’t been deleted yet, not that it should be replicated. If no reliable third-party sources that discuss this subject in-depth, then it fails our general notability criteria. Try and find news articles, journals etc. If non are found, then it is too early for an article. It is not a review of the subject it self, it is on the article as written, and if it is neutral, properly cited etc.

The subjects for our articles are usually chosen by the editing community rather than by petition or request. If however the entry qualifies under our encyclopedic notability guidelines (enwp.org/WP:N), and you can cite reliable, published, 3rd party sources (enwp.org/WP:RS), you can suggest the creation of it to our volunteers at enwp.org/WP:RA. If you are willing to write the article yourself, and submit it for other editors to review, you can use our Article Wizard to write it and then submit it to our Articles for Creation process where it can be considered for publication— the backlog there is sometimes over 5 weeks long or greater, but is more likely to result in the actual publication of the article than placing your name on our Requested Articles list. The "Article Wizard" at enwp.org/WP:WIZARD) will help you decide whether the topic you want to write about is suitable for a Wikipedia article. At the end of the wizard, if your subject is suitable for Wikipedia, you will be given the option to create a draft and submit it for review by other editors as a part of the "Articles for Creation" project (enwp.org/WP:AFC). The members of this project are experienced editors, though there is much greater demand for their services than there is supply, so you may need to wait a while before your draft is reviewed. Once you submit your draft, it will be placed into a category where it will be open for review by anyone who reviews submissions. If your submission is approved (which may take more than a month because of the current backlog) then an editor will accept it and you will be notified of the article's creation. If your submission is not accepted, a note will be left on the page describing what can be improved, and you will be notified of this via a message on your "Talk" page. Let me know if you have further questions. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, and welcome to the community! Good luck! (Response: cc-by-sa 3.0 / Wikimedia OTRS)

In the event some people signed this petition in order to get Wikipedia to write an article about Redcoin, this response is for you: The subjects for our articles are usually chosen by the editing community rather than by petition or request. If however the entry qualifies under our encyclopedic notability guidelines , and you can cite reliable, published, 3rd party sources , you can suggest the creation of it to our volunteers at . If you are willing to write the article yourself, and submit it for other editors to review, you can use our Article Wizard to write it and then submit it to our Articles for Creation process where it can be considered for publication— the backlog there is sometimes over 5 weeks long or greater, but is more likely to result in the actual publication of the article than placing your name on our Requested Articles list. The "Article Wizard" at will help you decide whether the topic you want to write about is suitable for a Wikipedia article. At the end of the wizard, if your subject is suitable for Wikipedia, you will be given the option to create a draft and submit it for review by other editors as a part of the "Articles for Creation" project (). The members of this project are experienced editors, though there is much greater demand for their services than there is supply, so you may need to wait a while before your draft is reviewed. Once you submit your draft, it will be placed into a category where it will be open for review by anyone who reviews submissions. If your submission is approved (which may take more than a month because of the current backlog) then an editor will accept it and you will be notified of the article's creation. If your submission is not accepted, a note will be left on the page describing what can be improved, and you will be notified of this via a message on your "Talk" page. Let me know if you have further questions. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, and welcome to the community! Good luck! (Response: cc-by-sa 3.0 / Wikimedia OTRS)

While Wikimedia Foundation, as a donor driven charity, accepts funds in a lot of different ways, Bitcoin amongst others (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give#bitcoin) However, Reddcoin has not been discussed to be accepted in the near future, as of yet. If you would like to influence the Wikimedia Fiundation, the organization that operates Wikipedia, or ask questions related to donations, please email donate@wikimedia.org.

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. This notability guideline for biographies reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. - If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. - Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding this issue. However, deletion decisions are not taken centrally, but after a discussion amongst the Wikipedia community, and with reference to our deletion policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy If you feel you have information which would be important to contribute to this discussion, please see the discussion page; we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion This subject has been the subject of multiple deletion discussions, where the volonteer editors and community on WIkipedia have decided that this subject is not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Note, however, that this is a discussion, not a vote, and that a decision to delete is not a reflection on the merits of the topic, but rather a discussion on whether the subject is appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia must expose knowledge that is already established and recognized, using reliable sources to support claims. Two of the project's three core content policies are "no original research" and "verifiability" . The no original research policy states: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. [...] This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." The verifiability policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by its readers, and consensus determines content on the project. Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others. To aid in reaching agreements on content issues, each article has an associated "discussion page" or "talk page"; you can access this by clicking the "discussion" link at the top of the article. You can then ask a question by selecting the "new section" link in the tabs at the top of the page. You will see two text boxes for you to write in: one for a title for your question and one for the question itself. Since article content is not controlled by a central authority, we do not resolve editing disputes via email or by petition. Instead, please follow the steps outlined at . These steps are designed to help you work with other editors and to draw upon the help of the wider community. A list of ways you can seek dispute resolution can be found at . Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia.