User talk:Charliallpress

Welcome!

Hello, Charliallpress, 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 The Mariposa Trust, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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 Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Mariposa Trust

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Mariposa Trust, 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 encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from The Mariposa Trust, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as The Mariposa Trust, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please don't use Wikipedia to promote this "amazing", "fantastic" organization. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Mariposa Trust

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Mariposa Trust, 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 encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Mariposa Trust

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Mariposa Trust 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 an organization or company, 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at The Mariposa Trust. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry the Dirty Dog, I don't see how that page was inappropriate. It may have been on a non-notable subject, but that's different. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It had already been speedily deleted a couple of times, so I consider repeatedly recreating it inappropriate. I was approaching this as a single purpose account here only to promote their charity. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry, this topic may have pressed my "wiki rage" buttons more than some, but please walk a mile in the other person's shoes. This couple have had five miscarriages, and believe me that's about one of the most horrible things that life on this planet can throw at you. They've tried to pick themselves up, got some attention, and have presumably through other stuff somebody has decided a Wikipedia page is now appropriate. They've come in with zero knowledge, tried to get something up and been more or less told to piss off. Just stop and think before brandishing your banhammer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but most people who are genuinely trying to help build an encyclopaedia ask for help when their articles are deleted, especially multiple times, rather than just trying to recreate them again and again. Having previously been warned several times (NawlinWiki issued the first warning on inappropriate pages), further warnings are not inappropriate when the behaviour doesn't change. It is about how the editor is acting, not the subject of the article. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to sit down with someone who doesn't use Wikipedia much or at all and watch them edit! (I'd recommend somebody female and over 65 myself.) Of course people will ask for help if they know where the help is. Which often they don't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I was getting was notices saying the page had been deleted. No-one was explaining why. I had underestimated the level of activity on wikipedia, having never uploaded or even edited an article before, I do not yet fully understand all the features and capabilities. When I created the article I: A. didn't expect it to go live, B. didn't expect anyone to be paying so much attention as to edit/delete immediately and therefore thought I had time to edit later, C. thought I might get some useful help or feedback once I realised A and B were not true. My attempts at multiple uploads did include edits to try and get SOMETHING up so that I could improve later. I could write the article offline, only to put time into something which will get deleted again.

Plenty of charities have wikipedia pages. Why not this one? Charliallpress (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that the article as it stood was purely promotional. By your own admission, the text was given to you by directors of the charity. That is always problematic. Several editors saw this as simply an attempt to promote the charity, which on the surface it was. There was no indication of why the charity was notable by Wikipedia standards. Some editors took the time to find some sources which saved the article from deletion, and further improved the article.

On that note, I would caution you against excessive involvement in this article as you clearly have a close relationship to the subject. It might be best, if you think something could be improved, to suggest the change on the article's talk page rather than doing it yourself. With the best will in the world, it is very difficult to maintain a neutral point of view in situations like this.

If you are looking to create further articles, the best advice is to start them in your sandbox (see the link at the top of the page) and move it to mainspace when you think it's ready. As noted in the first message on this page, if you need help with anything, just type {{help me}} on this page followed by your question and an experienced editor will come along to help you. Harry Let us have speaks 14:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your response. I appreciate the feedback. I feel that I am able to continue to have input with this article from a neutral standpoint. Having a passion for a topic does not mean that one is unable to see both sides of the coin. I wonder if it is possible for me to have this article removed and put into a place where I can add to it offline? I'm aware that other have now had input and that might make this difficult but i would like a chance to redeem myself without further upsetting people by getting it wrong? Charliallpress (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that you have a passion. Many editors edit in areas they are passionate about. The problem is that you have a connection with this charity, by the looks of it quite a close connection if the directors are giving you information to post. What you posted initially was entirely promotional. That, along with your insistence on reposting it after it had been deleted instead of following the directions that are quite clearly laid out at the top of this page for asking for help, led me and others to conclude, with some justification, that you were only here to promote this charity.

Please note that you do not own this article. Other editors, in particular Ritchie333, have indeed had input and have done a lot of work to save the article by establishing the charity's notability. The article as it stands now is fine and does not need to be deleted. Your response leads me to believe that you still do not fully understand what Wikipedia is about. It is not about a charity or any other organisation or person presenting themselves as they would wish (which is what your request to have the article deleted so you can add to it implies). Wikipedia is about presenting verifiable information backed up by reliable sources about notable subjects. What Wikipedia is not (among other things) is a vehicle for promoting projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. Information must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Anything that violates those guidelines will be removed. When whole articles violate those guidelines, they too can be removed.

All of the above is why I urge you in the strongest possible terms to be very careful about making more than minor edits to The Mariposa Trust article. I would suggest that, if you feel major improvements are needed, you discuss them on the article's talk page rather than doing it yourself, at least for the first little while. Gaining talk page consensus will avoid having your changes reverted if they are deemed promotional.

I would urge you instead to try editing other articles to get a real feel of how Wikipedia works. That will also help dispel any suspicion that you are here for the sole purpose of promoting The Mariposa Trust. Also, being a more experienced editor will help you avoid errors on the Mariposa article. (A change you made this evening actually removed a reference that was very helpful in establishing the charity's notability.)

I hope that this is helpful. Please do not hesitate to ask any other questions you may have. We are here to help. Harry Let us have speaks 19:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

OK - you've got rid of the promotional stuff. Now you need to address the notability side. Wikipedia requires subjects to be notable, unlike Facebook and directories. Look at WP:GROUP about notability, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources you need to prove it. Even charities have to meet those policies. If the article gets deleted, as it probably will be, I can put it into your user space for further work - if you think it can be made to pass. In the meantime, do take note about removing speedy deletion tags. It is not allowed on articles you have created, and done too many times will lead to blocking from editing. That's not a bluff by Harry - he can't do it, but I and the other admins can. And don't repost the article without getting an opinion first. Articles that are repeatedly posted can also be blocked (it's called 'protection' or 'salting'). People here can be really helpful and friendly - but you must play by our rules. We don't delete things just for fun - we are working to rules set by the community here. Peridon (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations to six newspaper sources that I found by typing the charities name into Google. That will be enough to stop it being deleted immediately here and now, but it's still possible for a consensus discussion to decide to delete it later - though I will personally argue for it to be kept, or to be merge / redirected to Miscarriage or some other article. As a parent of two myself, I consider myself quite fortunate that both of the pregnancies I have witnessed as a father have resulted in two happy, healthy bouncing boys (even if I despair of ever getting an honest answer to the question "Have you really tidied your room"?). @Drmies:, @MelanieN: - can you help? @Peridon: I can see you were being helpful, but often I find just searching for sources and dropping one or two into an article (if you can find them!) works miracles if you know how to do it, as I think expecting a new user to master <ref> tags with correct citation information is frankly wishful thinking! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work, @Ritchie333:! As far as I can see this is now a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia article. I especially liked the BBC article for establishing notability. Not bad for an organization that has only been around for a few years! I added a category or two but I don't see anything else that needs improving. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to @Charliallpress:: You really should join in this conversation; you can see that many of us here are trying to help you with your article, and others are trying to explain how Wikipedia works. Commenting here is easy! Just click "edit" at the top of the page and put your comments at the bottom. Wikipedia will even sign your username for you, if you type four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comments, or click on the signature icon above the editing window. (It looks like part of a signature.) Welcome to Wikipedia, we are a community of people trying to write an encyclopedia, please join in! --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, Firstly thankyou for your input and edits. I read the 'how to make a wikipedia page' before beginning this task and it made sound so laid back and 'easy'. How wrong I was!

The information I originally entered was from the directors of the charity themselves and I did explain to them that it was too 'involved', not very subjective. My intention was always to edit it but each time I tried the page was deleted, hence my multiple attempts to upload.

In the end I uploaded only the first two paragraphs of what they gave me to see if I could get SOMETHING accepted so thankyou for not deleting this! When I originally uploaded, I tried to find a way to undo it - delete it myself but I haven't figured that out yet, having this article put into user space for further work would be really useful, especially now I have a better understanding of what is required.

Also, regarding the removal of speedy deletion tags - I didn't knowingly do that. Put it down to noob-ness.

Initially, the page was being deleted with very minimal explanation as to why, that didn't help either. I do understand what was wrong now and intend to try to add further info later. Thankyou all for your help Charliallpress (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Charliallpress, nice to meet you and welcome to Wikipedia! Now that you know about talk pages, use them freely. Every article and every user has a talk page where you can comment or ask questions. I would say it is no longer necessary to put this article into userspace. All the references added by User:Ritchie333 have made it into an acceptable Wikipedia article in my opinion. You can go ahead and add to it, but be very careful about accepting information from the directors of the charity. They have a conflict of interest and are likely to give you material that is promotional - to make the charity look good - rather than straightforward and encyclopedic. If you have questions or need help, ask me or Ritchie. And don't limit yourself to this article. Browse around the encyclopedia, read articles about things you have an interest in, and make small corrections where you see an error or a typo. If you make a significant addition, be sure to add a reference. In the future if you decide to create an article, do it in your sandbox; that's your own userspace where you can take your time and no one will hassle you. There should be a link to your sandbox at the very top of every Wikipedia page, or you can create it as User:Charliallpress/Sandbox. Warning: Wikipedia can be habit forming. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding your comment above "Plenty of charities have articles, why not this one?" - the answer is that Wikipedia has guidelines for what can be included here, we don't have articles about every charity (or other subject) in the world. The guideline is that the subject has to have been recognized as significant by outside, reliable sources. That's what we call the general notability guideline. We establish the notability of the subject through significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I wish the deletion notices explained that more clearly. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charliallpress, thanks for getting in touch. You are far from the first person to have seen this poor treatment and I'm glad you are still here. We have an important guideline, Please do not bite the newcomers, and it's one I subscribe to very strongly. As a treat for you to hopefully offset your initial bad experience, The Mariposa Trust article has been queued to be part of the featured new content on Wikipedia's main page in about a week. It will be featured under the "Did you know?" area and contain a fact about the charity skydives, and you'll get a message thanking you for writing it when it goes live.

To give you some background into Wikipedia history, there were two key controversies, the Wikipedia biography controversy in 2005 and the Essjay Controversy in 2007 which has meant that Wikipedia regulars watch new content carefully in case a hoax turns up. This means all new articles from the word go have to include references that state, unambiguously, where you got your facts from, so anyone can be assured the article is factually correct and worthy of an encyclopedia. That's where the WP:42 link that Melanie referenced above comes it.

I have watched a number of newcomers edit Wikipedia (most obviously Rockie Charles who, if you look at the history, shows my partner writing it, giving up, and me taking over and finishing it). Personally, if I see an article tagged for deletion, and can save it (and in this case, a Google News search for "Mariposa Trust" brought back two pages of news stories, showing me it was a notable subject worthy to be on Wikipedia there and then), I will do so as it's more likely the newcomer will stick around. Family and parenting issues are under-represented on Wikipedia, and anyone who is willing to help write them should be welcomed with open arms. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Mariposa Trust

On 13 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Mariposa Trust, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the family support group The Mariposa Trust has been partly funded by charity sky dives? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Mariposa Trust. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Mariposa Trust for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Mariposa Trust 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/The Mariposa Trust 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]