User talk:Olivercdavies

Welcome!
Hello, Olivercdavies, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was United Hospitals Lawn Tennis Club, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Drm310 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Conflict of interest
Hello Oliver. This is in response to your note on my talk page - at least I think it was you. The comment was left by a user who was not logged in but identified themselves as you. At any rate, I have embedded relevant links in my response about the United Hospitals Lawn Tennis Club article.

Wikipedia articles are about topics which are notable - that is, of interest to the world at large. There are specific notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While I won't repeat them here, the main thrust is: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The lack of sources make what you wrote unverifiable, and make it impossible to establish the organization's notability. This means the article's chances of survival are not good, and it may be deleted.

While I'm sure your edits were well-meaning, you still stand in a conflict of interest (COI) because you belong to this organization. It is reasonable to conclude that you are not the best judge of its notability. For this reason and others, COI editing is discouraged (but not prohibited).

A more constructive alternative, particularly for new editors like yourself who stand in conflict of interest, is to go through the Articles for Creation process. By submitting your article draft to AfC, it will be reviewed by more experienced and uninvolved editors who can provide feedback about whether it passes the basic criteria for an article. Once consensus is reached, the article will be posted. If you require more time to develop the article before submitted it to AfC, its contents can be copied to your user sandbox, the most appropriate place to work on a article draft.

As well, it is advisable for you to disclose your affiliation with the organization on your user page. By doing so, other editors will see that you are editing in good faith by being transparent about your affiliation.

If your initial effort is deleted, don't be discouraged - it's not meant to be personal. Thousands of articles are routinely deleted because they didn't meet one or more policies or guidelines. If you can come up with some good quality sources for your article, it could still be salvaged. Hopefully this has helped, and you will continue to contribute constructively. Good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have seen your response on my talk page and I will reply when I have a moment (it's rather late at night now in my part of the world). However, I would first like to point out a couple of technical matters for you when you add content to talk pages.
 * Please add new comments at the end of the page, so they appear in chronological order and the discussion flows in a logical sequence.
 * When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
 * Add four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.
 * This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * Thanks and I'll get back to you soon. Cheers. --Drm310 (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again Oliver. I'm back replying to your comment on my talk page. I have to take issue with your argument that the United Hospitals Lawn Tennis Club article must be allowed to exist because of the existence of other articles relating to UH subjects. The flaw in that logic is that other articles exist when perhaps they should not; simply pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted, but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. Each article must stand on its own merit, independently of any other.
 * Verifiability, not truth is the overriding principle. An article's content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. We don't demand that our readers accept content on blind faith.
 * I would also point out that the requirement for independent, secondary sources is not limited to those found online. Printed works like books, magazines and journals from reputable publishers are also considered reliable sources, and can be cited as such. Therefore if your club is mentioned in such works, they can be used to establish the club's notability.
 * As you are a new editor, and because your communication has been commendable, I've given you the benefit of the doubt. However I do wish to see you supply some reliable, independent sources to establish this club's notability. The burden of evidence does lie with you, the contributor, to prove that what you are writing about is verifiable. --Drm310 (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United Hospitals Lawn Tennis Club


A tag has been placed on United Hospitals Lawn Tennis Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Drm310 (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding deletion
Hi, I've been over the page an added in the most pertinent references and a few extra links as well. The page is now no longer an 'orphan' and has external links to published material. Thankyou for giving me the benefit of the doubt, though I notice you have also added a speedy deletion tag?. I hope this is ok and that you no longer feel the page should be deleted. If there is anything else, please let me know so that I can amend it and prevent deletion. thanks Oliver Olivercdavies (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy deletion was declined because an admin deemed it to notable enough to keep. It needs more citations, though, to be spared from the Proposed Deletion or Articles for Deletion processes. Continue seeking these out and inserting them where appropriate.
 * I found some problems with the sources you added, though:
 * The Lancet source links to a page but I cannot view the actual text. It's a bit misleading if you have citation with a URL but then the reader is unable to read the text that purportedly verifies the statement. Better to omit the URL and just leave it as a printed journal citation (see cite journal).
 * The British Medical Journal source you cited is readable, but I can't find anything in the pages you quoted that verify the statement you placed it by.
 * The Medical Student source just goes to the homepage of the website, which doesn't verify the statement. It shouldn't be up to the reader to search for the verifying text after the fact - it should be one click away.
 * There is more on the proper usage and formatting of footnotes at Help:Footnotes. --Drm310 (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am away as of tomorrow over the Christmas holidays without internet access but will fix on my return, I will then amend the lancet article to a paper printed copy, fix the bmj reference and link the medical student page directly the specified edition and article page, whilst also searching for further sources. merry christmas Oliver Olivercdavies (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User:Olivercdavies/sandbox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:UH Tennis Tie Logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:UH Tennis Tie Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)