User talk:Millies

Welcome!

Hello, Millies, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Marriage Thing

A tag has been placed on The Gay Marriage Thing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of The Gay Marriage Thing and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating articles

Hi, the problem with creating new articles is that they have to clearly demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is inundated with thousands of new partial articles, articles about subjects that will never meet the inclusion guideline or pages that are complete nonsense or vandalism. That is not to say that the page you created falls into one of those categories, rather that you need to start the article off on a footing that distinguishes it from the other matter so that it will not be tagged for deletion in the perpetual sweep of new pages. The best way to do this is to make sure that your new article includes the sections that demonstrate the notability of the subject and make sure that citations to reliable sources are provided from the get go. That way the admin that is making a judgment on the article that has been tagged will have material to refer to. In the absence of any citations, and faced with a short article, it is routine to remove such articles to keep on top of the problem. If you are sure that the subject meets the guidelines for inclusion then I recommend that if you either create the article in userspace (e.g. at User:Millies/temp and get it more completed before later copying the material into its final location, or make sure you include an {{underconstruction}} tag on the page so that other editors can see it is being actively worked on. If you would like me to copy the deleted articles contents into your userspace I can do that. Any questions please ask. Mfield (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand you are having problems with The Gay Marriage Thing. This is partially why I suggested you create the page in userspace first, as there you could have other editors look at it and make suggestions without them being forced to make changes directly to bring the article in line with guidelines. Looking at the article history, most of the information that has been removed by other editors was removed as unsourced. All information needs to be cited and needs to be relevant and noteworthy. Primary sources are essential in establishing the necessary notability. I would also say that if you are in some way involved with the subject of the article, then you may have difficulty in judging what constitutes encyclopedic relevance due to a conflict of interest. Other uninvolved editors may be able to make clearer judgements about what is noteworthy and what could be considered trivia or cruft. It is important to engage other editors on article talk - as I see you have asked there - and ascertain from them what is wrong with what you have written and how it can be improved. This discussion and consensus process is what this entire community project is based around. You should also declare their any involvement you may have with the article's subject so that everyone understands where your contributions are coming from. 23:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)