User talk:Catt Gravitt

This is Catt Gravitt's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hello, Catt Gravitt, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Catt Gravitt, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Catt Gravitt! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article

I understand you are working on a draft article at User:Catt Gravitt/sandbox that I assume you plan to submit for inclusion at some stage in the near future. Before you do so, can I strongly suggest you read a couple of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article creation, namely WP:COI, WP:AB, WP:V and WP:GNG.

I can see you are putting significant work into your draft and am concerned you may run into problems very soon after creating the article if a number of issues are not addressed first. I am more than happy to help in any way I can - feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Stalwart111 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catt Gravitt.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 03:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've approved the article. I made a couple of minor edits that didn't change the meaning at all. Just try to aim for a neutral tone when editing; if an article is too gushy about its subject it's liable to get classed as "written like an advertisement" and taken down. Have a good day! --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Catt Gravitt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catt Gravitt 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catt Gravitt 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 high-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. Stalwart111 11:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Catt Gravitt

Um, I didn't recommend it for deletion. The issue seems to be a lack of notability. I thought it would pass, but an admin has decided it didn't. I will say that whether she needs it for her songwriting business or not is irrelevant; this is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising platform. --FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 23:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response...I am just trying to figure out how all of this works. To your above comment, this is not a page to be used as an "advertising platform". It IS a page for new or prospective business partners of hers to look at and get a sense of her accomplishment in the business by reading her career facts, and that is all that it is intended to be. Forgive me if I gave you the wrong impression. Many songwriters have wikipedia pages and I tried to model hers after them, so please allow me some grace while I improve the page as best I can. Thank you for your help.Catt Gravitt (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Has been resolved.

Hi. Okay, to begin with, paid editing is always strongly discouraged and is considered a very serious conflict of interest at a volunteer project. There are many reasons why COI editing is discouraged, but one obvious one is because it encourages people to write articles on Wikipedia about subjects/people that are not notable - Wikipedia's key inclusion criteria.

I would also suggest it's not particularly wise to accept payment for the creation of content at a site where you have no experience or understanding of basic rules and guidelines. You should probably have had a quick look at Wikipedia's editing guidelines before accepting payment for editing.

There's also an argument that if Catt Gravitt was actually notable, one of the thousands of volunteer content creators would have started an article about her, thus negating the need for her to pay someone to WP:PROMO her. Wikipedia is not for promotion or the development of people's careers. Its an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages or LinkedIn.

To be considered notable enough for inclusion, a subject must generally have received "significant coverage" in reliable sources. See WP:GNG. Any argument you have about the notability of the subject should be presented at the articles for deletion page where I will copy your message to me for other editors to consider. Stalwart111 23:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to create drama by any means so forgive me. I am well aware of the use of wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and not a social networking tool. Mrs. Gravitt has no intention of using this as such. There are multiple people in her profession with wikipedia pages (whose pages I tried to model hers after) so I do not understand why her also having one would be an issue.

The business side of my PA duties to her include multiple tasks, and I volunteered to make a page for her because I saw many songwriters with pages and believed her to be credible enough to have one. So while I am paid by her, I didn't specifically mean "paid editing", and I realize the projected indication of my mis-speaking now. I apologize. I do not understand how the communication here works, obviously because I do not understand why there is a need to copy my message of trying to work out my misunderstandings of how to correctly display information of her page to others who potentially could have the page deleted. I have no ill intentions here so I apologize if anything I say comes across wrongly. I would just like there to be a page with correct, factual information about her, as there are many people of her profession. Thank you for your help...I will continue fixing the page to wiki standards.Catt Gravitt (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First you claimed to be a paid editor with a payment now "pending" because of the proposed deletion and that you wouldn't get paid if the article was deleted. Now you're her PA? You need to understand that it really doesn't matter, a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. It's really unacceptable either way and the "change" of employment status makes no difference. Being an employee and editing as part of your job would still be considered "paid editing". Articles must stand on their individual merits here so the fact that other articles exist is of no real consequence. The subject needs to be notable. Her "need" or "want" for a page is also inconsequential if she is not notable. But you really should be making these arguments (I would suggest you make policy-based arguments) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catt Gravitt. Stalwart111 23:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for taking the time to help. I really appreciate it... sincerely...I don't wish to upset anyone, I'm just trying to do a good job. So thank you I am editing the page now and will heed to your advice about wiki-cross references. thanksCatt Gravitt (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at WP:COIDEC. Posting a declaration will improve your standing as a WP editor. – S. Rich (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the help, I will post a declaration. Catt Gravitt (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you do, I will modify the talk page connected contributor banner. – S. Rich (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a COI to my user page. I believe it is in the correct location, but please alert me if it needs to be changed. Thanks again so much for your help.Catt Gravitt (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice and a good start, though there's no need to use any real personal details. In light of your declaration, WP:RENAME might be a good place to visit. Stalwart111 01:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had already considered this...thank you! Catt Gravitt (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has been resolved.

Please stop!

Please stop - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please don't keep adding Wikipedia articles between ref tags to Catt Gravitt. You're actually doing your cause more harm than good. Stalwart111 00:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your input...I REALLY AM just learning, so thanks for the constructive criticism. I sincerely appreciate it.Catt Gravitt (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using your watchlist function is a good way of seeing where other editors are editing the same pages as you to address things like that immidiately. You would also have seen I made similar edits yesterday which might have drawn your attention to those guidelines earlier. Stalwart111 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to take a step back, I think, and have a read of a few key policies before adding more to Catt Gravitt. There are now 23 "references" attached to the article but not one that could be considered "significant coverage" (WP:SIGCOV) in independent reliable sources (WP:RS). So you're not actually doing anything to demonstrate the notability of the subject. It might "look" impressive but most people at AFD will actually check reference substance. I don't want you to waste your time working hard on things that, really, have no chance of saving the article. You need to find those notability-conferring sources if you can. Stalwart111 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final bits of advice

Well, you've overcome two hurdles: new article and a proposed deletion. Time for more advice. 1. Add categories to the bottom of the page (other articles will give you hints). Don't go overboard with them. 2. Add an infobox. 3. List the article with a WikiProject like WikiProject Music. The Project page will give you hints on format etc. 4. Go through every link and fix the disambigulations. Use piping to link the proper name. Example [[David Robinson (musician)|David Robinson]] will link to David Robinson. 5. Be sure to follow WP:LAYOUT. Good start! I'm gonna take you off my watchlist, but feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have questions. – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your guided help! I SO appreciate it! Do you know how to remove the link about disambigulations? I have revised all questionable links, but the notice is still there. Thanks again for your patience and help. Catt Gravitt (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some great advice. You should also edit with the basic priciples of Wikipedia front and centre. Volunteer editors are here to build an encyclopedia and so those who start here for other reasons can have a tough time of it. But your willingness to learn will go a long way. I've withdrawn the deletion nomination - the meeting of WP:COMPOSER puts notability beyond doubt. You should try to include some of the sources highlighted during that discussion. They will help to verify some of the claims in the article, which is still required. Stalwart111 02:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!Catt Gravitt (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]