User talk:Caitlinmcfeely

I was wondering if someone could take a look at User:Caitlinmcfeely/Children's Health Fund entry and let me know if it is suitable for Wikipedia. I'd like to move it over to a live page, but would prefer to have clarification first. --Caitlinmcfeely (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At first glance, it fails to meet WP:N - showing significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the page being deleted? I haven't even made it live yet. I was trying to figure out how to put in more references --Caitlinmcfeely (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The request for speedy deletion has been declined. It was tagged by mistake. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, Caitlinmcfeely, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana   ( bananaphone  18:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Article sourcing
Ok would it be better to use media coverage as the sources?

Yes, content and claims in articles should be based on what reliable third party sources say about the topic. Many of the hits here: are likely to provide useful and usable content. Note that you should be including both positive and negative coverage. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  19:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The short answer, as Active Banana has said, is "yes". Sources dependent on the subject, such as their own web site, can sometimes be useful for confirming facts about the subject, but never for establishing that the subject is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Even for confirming facts it is better if you can manage to find some independent confirmation for anything that might be considered controversial or questionable, but this is not usually necessary for basic facts such as who founded the organisation. Have a look at the guideline on reliable sources for further information. Also feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any other questions about this issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have added that you probably should try to stay away from blogs as well. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Caitlinmcfeely/Children's Health Fund
A tag has been placed on User:Caitlinmcfeely/Children's Health Fund, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wuh Wuz  Dat  19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about that, I have declined the speedy deletion nomination. More advice in a few minutes. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, pheww. Thank you. --Caitlinmcfeely (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Caitlinmcfeely/Children's Health Fund
The most important thing the article needs is independent references. All your references are from the website, plus one from the patron and one which doesn't mention the fund. Wikipedia's notability requirement is for showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have other people, unconnected with the fund, thought it important and interesting enough to write about? See also WP:Notability (organizations and companies).

You could also rewrite a bit to make it less promotional sounding. It's not bad in that respect, but neutral point of view is an important policy here - Wikipedia is extremely sensitive about being used for any kind of promotion, and anything that sounds at all as if you are trying to make a case will raise hackles - hence the speedy deletion nomination just now. Don't use words like "25 innovative pediatric care programs" and "the nation's leading pediatric provider" unless you can cite an independent source that says so - see WP:PEACOCK. And don't use the second person as in "we are fortunate to have the expertise", "our medical programs", "We initiated this plan" - this is to be an encyclopedia article about the fund, it is not the fund's manifesto.

The best way to get more advice about your draft is to post a request at WP:Requests for feedback where you will find people who specialise in doing that. WP:Your first article is worth reading, too.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, JohnCD. I will get to reworking this. It's interesting though, many other organizations that I read pages for were of similar type to what I have written (perhaps a bit promotional).  Would it be ok to say CHF has 25 pediatric care programs (which it does) and just leave out the word innovative? I will upload what I have so far to the requests for feedback page and make edits from there.  Also, is there a way to get final approval from wikipedia before posting? I certainly don't want to have the material deleted.  Thanks again for help!

--Caitlinmcfeely (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "final approval" but if the article has a number of citations to reliable sources that talk about the organization in more than a passing manner, "deletion" shouldnt be an issue. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  19:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't upload it to Requests for feedback - just post a request there with a link to the draft article (by typing its full name between double square brackets). And yes, factual statement is fine, loaded adjective is not. When you find yourself writing one, imagine a hostile critic looking over your shoulder saying "can you prove that?" And in regard to other articles, we know that out of the 3,000,000 many are substandard, and probably our standards have risen over time; so What about article x? is not accepted as a defence. regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both for your help. And I totally understand about the other articles - didn't mean to sound defensive! Just was curious as to if Wikipedia became a little more strict in the past few years. I appreciate the clarification.

copyright

 * There's something else, & it's more critical. Some of it at least is copied or very closely paraphrased from your web site, and that is unacceptable unless you explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing using the CC-BY-SA  and the GNU  licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials ; but even so, the material still will sound more like a website than an encyclopedia  article, and it would be better to rewrite it. If you post it as it it will be almost immediately deleted as a copyvio.     DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Irwin Redlener, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Irwin Redlener was changed by Caitlinmcfeely (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.959664 on 2010-12-09T18:54:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Children's Health Fund
I left you a note at Requests for feedback/2010 September 2. I think you're good to go--but keep in mind, other editors may feel differently. The article has references that I think prove the topic notable. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, Thanks for your note. I have been working on updating the Children's Health Fund page and have new sources to add/language to switch out. So should be good to go soon. Could you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Redlener? This page was flagged (you will see comments at the top) but I just edited it down and added all new references. Does this look suitable to you? How do we get those alerts taken off of the page? Thanks in advance for your help! Caitlinmcfeely (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to lean the same direction as Drmies in regaurds to this article. Caitlinmcfeely, Cluebot warned you because it looks like you deleted a significant portion of the article when you inserted your ref. This looks to be unintentional, so you just may want to double check in the future when editing articles. -- TwistOfCain  (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TwistOfCait. It was unintentional, I am still new to wiki! Question, what does the bare urls mean by the reference section? I'm unsure what that means and how I can fix it. cmcfee 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Take a look at the Samhain (band) article. Scroll down to the ref section, and that's how yours should look. -- TwistOfCain  (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, instead of trying to make you figure it out on your own, this guide should help in how to work with references. Hope that helps! -- TwistOfCain  (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being so helpful! I have updated the citations and think everything should be set straight. Thanks again. cmcfee 17:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a problem with the citations for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Redlener ? What do I need to do to get rid of the box at the top? Thanks in advance for your help. cmcfee 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a problem with the citations for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Redlener ? What do I need to do to get rid of the box at the top? Thanks cmcfee 15:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to push the page for Children's Health Fund live. Does this page meet all of the requirements for Wikipedia? Please let me know if there is somewhere else I should post the information to get the go ahead for posting live. Thank you! User:Caitlinmcfeely/Children's Health Fund cmcfee 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've made a small comment at Requests for feedback/2011 January 11. Also, if you want to make the page "live", you will have to move the page to Children's Health Fund. (I can do it for you if you want.) Guoguo12  --Talk--  03:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Would you mind pushing it live for me? Appreciate the help. cmcfee 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I think I did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Fund. Does that look good?

Hi, I have been trying to figure out how to get rid of the box on top of the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Fund. I have requested feedback a few times since January, but have yet to hear back about it. I believe the page meets all of the requirements but am happy to edit it if need be. Please advice. Thank you! cmcfee 21:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason you have been getting no replies is that putting "tlp" in front of a "helpme" disables it so that nobody knows about it. I'm sorry I haven't got time now to follow up this one, but I have enabled it so that others will come. Above is what it should look like. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! cmcfee 21:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Open the edit window and remove this - located at the top  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)