User talk:Sarah WNorman

Start!

How do I upload a logo?

Logo
I think you should use a Non-free media use rationale. For example, take a look at File:Nestlé.svg: this is a logo for Nestlé. Please feel free to send me another message if you have any other question. :) Regards -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 14:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!

Speedy deletion nomination of Timothy Michael Marskell


A tag has been placed on Timothy Michael Marskell 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 person or group of people, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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 hang-on 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What just happened? This is really really strange.

Removing Speedy at Timothy Michael Marskell
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Timothy Michael Marskell, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, robot.
 * Please. That's really weird. Is that a person are is malware?
 * Can you please stop shouting at me? Sarah WNorman (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing all the spam robot messages. Sarah WNorman (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Sarah WNorman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Timothy Michael Marskell, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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 helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here 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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Timothy Michael Marskell


The article Timothy Michael Marskell has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. OSbornarfcontribs. 17:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks John. I followed the links and put up the hang-on tag but the robot kept putting up the other one. It's bizarre. Sarah WNorman (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem appears to be that you kept removing the speedy deletion tag. The hangon tag gets added below that one, not in place of it. That's why the bot kept restoring the tag.


 * That said, please see my comments on the article's talk page about sourcing the article. Otherwise, it's subject to be nominated for deletion discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wiki Leads


The article Wiki Leads has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable. Some of the sources are inappropriate and unverifiable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OSbornarfcontribs. 17:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability and Verifiability
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is selective about article subjects. The criterion used is called notability, and is not a matter of opinion but must be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, 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 people unconnected with the subject found it important and significant enough to write substantial comment on? More detail at WP:Notability (people).

Also, Wikipedia has a policy of WP:Verifiability which "requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source." Your first version of this article had two references marked "Private communication." For Wikipedia's verifiability purposes, those are useless. The fourth was his LinkedIn profile, and so not independent.

There is good advice on how to write an acceptable article at WP:Your first article. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've set the page Timothy Michael Marskell so that it redirects to the correct location for you. OSbornarfcontribs. 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sarah WNorman (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Private communication" references
The reason why there is no point giving "private communication" as a reference is because the only point of references is to meet Wikipedia's fundamental WP:Verifiability policy, which includes: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

To show that it is not original research, all material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. But in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source... With something like a birthday, you might hope that it was not "likely to be challenged" and just put it in. But a reference that says "private communication" amounts to saying "I know this, but I can't cite a reliable source", so there is no point to it.

I'm afraid you are finding that there is a learning curve to Wikipedia; but the policies like Verifiability and Notability that you are coming up against are precisely what make Wikipedia a more valuable resource than, say, Myspace or LinkedIn. I have similar conversations with new contributors so often that I have written a note User:JohnCD/Not a noticeboard, still in draft, which you may find useful. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can understand that. I also had a sister who had her entity stolen. If private communication can't be used to establish a birthday then this website shouldn't have articles on ANY living person. Sarah WNorman (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy on WP:Biographies of living persons is particularly strict about verifiability and reliable sources: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." When you say "private communication" we have no way to be sure who you, on the end of a wire, are, let alone whether what you say is accurate JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC).
 * I understand. But that's still a tautology. Wikipedia should consider deleting it's articles on all living people. Sarah WNorman (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary: articles on living people can be backed up by references in reliable sources. Major newspapers like The Globe and Mail are accepted as reliable sources because of the way they operate, with fact-checking and editorial review. Wikipedia does err on the side of caution for controversial news: for instance, when stories break about the death of a celebrity, it doesn't go in the Wikipedia article until multiple sources are all reporting the same story—and reporting as fact and not just repeating what they heard elsewhere.
 * Further, think about how the verifiability requirement plays with "private communication." If The Globe and Mail publishes an article and mentions a notable person's birthday, anybody wanting to verify the fact can go to that same newspaper story to make sure that Wikipedia is presenting the fact correctly. To verify private communication, any (and every) user wanting to verify the fact would have to contact the subject directly! —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Wiki Leads for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wiki Leads 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 Articles for deletion/Wiki Leads until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. OSbornarfcontribs. 18:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me what links are no good now? I've tried to remove the rough ones. Facebook no longer used. Obviously a university website can establish education. A business database can establish professional experience. And, as I keep saying, I've actually bought copies of these books. Sarah WNorman (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Copies of the books and the university website are primary sources; the business database might also be depending on who updates it. Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles written about the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Wiki Leads. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Wiki Leads' works
I see you're now creating articles for each of the works that Wiki Leads has published. None of these works are notable in their own right. Rather than delete the pages outright, I have redirected them back to the Wiki Leads article, where they are discussed. Please focus on that article for now. Once it's shown to be clearly notable, and once each of the books are shown to have notability in their own right, we can consider whether the books need articles. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)