User talk:Jshephard

The article Bishop charles ellis has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a person or group of persons but it does not indicate how or why that person or group is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jshephard, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Andrew c 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL and blogs

I saw your edits to Domestic Violence (one of which I personally reverted) and I saw your comments at User talk:Atlant and felt that you needed an explanation. First of all, if you want to get people to read your ideas, Wikipedia is not the medium for you to accomplish this goal. We have a rule against original research. We don't publish new ideas; all of our content must be attributed to verifiable, reliable sources. Next, per our external links guidelines: "Links normally to avoid: #11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Blogs have verifiability issues, are typically never reliable sources, and almost always publishers of original research, all things with wikipedia has expressed opinions on. You should also consider conflicts of interest: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." So in summary, your link was not acceptable because it is a blog and it is your own personal site you are promoting.

Here is a tip, instead of editing wikipedia to promote outside content, why not consider using your knowledge to contribute to the articles in question by expanding content, citing reliable sources, and cleaning up the existing article text. Hope this helps, and feel free to ask me any more questions you may have.-Andrew c 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Peer Pressure

Hi. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I saw you created the article Universal Peer Pressure. However, the content is original research and I am afraid it is not suited as is for Wikipedia. Furthermore, it's not so clear that this requires a separate article since the topic could be included to expand the article peer pressure. So I've redirected your article to the main peer pressure article. Cheers. Pascal.Tesson 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, nothing disappears on Wikipedia, although they might become harder to find until you've gotten the hang of it. If you click on the link Universal Peer Pressure you will indeed be redirected to peer pressure. But here's the little detail: you will see written in fine print under the article's title "(Redirected from Universal Peer Pressure)". Click there and you will see the page I created with a redirect. Now click the history tab and you've got your version back. And if you can't follow what I'm saying (and I wouldn't blame you) you can also simply click here and you'll see the history directly. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 01:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]