User talk:Ellidyr

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. ----VS ^talk 12:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Blogged.com

I have nominated Blogged.com, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogged.com. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --VS ^talk 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogged.com entry

Hi Kenneth - good to see you taking such a fine interest in your first article. As you will have noted I have posted a welcome banner on your talk page with heaps of links to reading material that will help you create the perfect article. In particular you should start by reading Wikipedia:Five pillars which as you will see provides other links to Notability and Verifiability. I should also note that as an administrator on wikipedia I only tagged your article as part of the normal process that occurs when an editor puts a request for speedy deletion up on a page and another editor asks for the community to "hang-on". I do not have any personal view about your article. I suggest that you might get some more help from DanielRigal as he was the first to put the tag up. Normally editors who have taken the time to tag an article for speedy deletion are happy to provide more information. I will post a note to him about this conversation but also you can at any time contact him and ask questions. Just remember three important rules, stay civil, stay calm and keep editing. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 12:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other tip perhaps - go to .com and have a look at the list of ".com" sites and links about half way down the page. Click on one or two (or more) and have a look how the numerous editors have written an article based on fact and have removed the style of advertising spiel that will make an article more brochure and less encyclopaedia. Don't worry about being as good as this straight up but try and get more of this style into your blogged.com article. You have about 2 or 3 days to sway the reviewers who will come to post a suggestion of keep, delete or merge on the AfD discussion.--VS ^talk 12:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am the person who first tagged blogged.com for deletion and so I want to explain what is happening and why. Firstly, please let me assure that there is nothing personal in any of this. I just can't see blogged.com being a suitable article subject because I can't see any proof of notability. I am not sure if you saw my note on Talk:Blogged.com, but I tried to explain the notability problem there. For more details see the policies on Notability and Verifiability. Remember that there are millions of websites out there. Most of them are perfectly good but that doesn't mean that they are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. If you look at the policy WP:NOT you will see a list of things that Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a directory of websites and most websites can not be included, even though there is nothing wrong with them.

When I tagged the article, VirtualSteve was the administrator who had to decide whether to delete the article or not. He decided not to delete it straight away but to put it up for wider discussion. This has two effects.

There will be several days delay before the article can be deleted. This gives you a chance to try to fix it. If you think you can address the problems then you can try to do this. Finding a few links to independent reputable sources talking about blogged.com would make a huge difference so I recommend trying to do that.
There will be an open discussion, which you can participate in, about whether to delete the article. You will have a chance to have your say and the article will only be deleted if it is widely agreed that it should be.

Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogged.com to participate in the discussion. It is a discussion not a vote so don't be put off if you are in the minority. If you make valid points they will be listened to.

Please do not be too upset if the article does get deleted. It will be because blogged.com is an inappropriate subject, not because there is anything wrong with what you wrote. You will still be very welcome to contribute to Wikipedia on other articles and I hope you will. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I attempted to add Blogged.com article back in again. This time, I've added the section that addresses the question of "notability" as previously suggested. Please take a look and let me know what your thoughts are. Thank you again for taking the time to look at this. I appreciate your comments and they have been very helpful. Best Regards, Kenneth