User talk:LizHawkins

Welcome

Hello, LizHawkins! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Akerans (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ckatz^chat _spy 08:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I noticed your contributions and your comments at User talk:Ckatz so I will attempt a brief explanation. How you format external links is not relevant to the fact that many of those you added have been reverted, however, as far as the formatting is concerned, simple is good, and entries with more links and promotional wording are more likely to be removed. Wikipedia has a high web presence, and anyone can edit. The result is that hundreds of people add promotional links every day, and regular editors here cannot spend much time evaluating each link and pondering whether to keep it. If external links were not actively opposed, every article would have dozens of dubious links added purely to promote some external entity. I can see from how you have phrased your comments on a couple of talk pages that you are a conscientious and competent new editor, but so far it appears that all your work has been focused on Total Film or on adding links to the website for that organization in other articles. A lot of single purpose accounts edit here and it is not always easy to judge whether their work helps Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository of links (see WP:NOTDIR), and I will remove some of the links you have added at Total Film because it is not our role to provide handy links to each part of a website (our link to an official website should be to the home page, and that should provide links to relevant areas; Wikipedia does not attempt to compensate for an official website that fails to provide such links). Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, apologies; I missed your initial post, and it was archived by the 'bot that does such things yesterday. Sorry about that. As for the links, John has touched on much of it. Simply put, the site is not a directory service, and we get many, many, many postings. Some are purely spammers, others are well-intentioned, and from your subsequent posts I'd presume you are in the latter category. I'd like to reassure you that the removal should not be taken as a statement against the quality of the site, but again as a matter of practicality. If we say yes to one site, how do we deny others? Over time, certain sites have come to be accepted as the main ones we'll list and that is why you see them in the EL section. If you feel that your site can offer something, you would be better off trying to convince editors at the film Wikiproject to use the site, and by suggesting resources unique to your site on article talk pages to add new material to an article. You'll find that mass additions of generic links to "yet another review site" are strongly rejected, while new and unique insights that improve the quality of a single article are often welcomed. (Note that, as you are apparently associated with the site, you'd be better off allowing other editors to make such choices as they are free of the conflict of interest that you would have.) Please feel free to ask more questions if you have them; while it is unfortunate that your initial foray into Wikipedia began on a somewhat bumpy manner, it is not unusual for new editors to take a while to learn the ropes. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your comprehensive replies. Please accept my apologies for my clunky initial approach - I'm prepared to put in the time to get this right and I'll do my utmost to get better at this...

Johnuniq, based on your comment above, am I right in thinking I should be able to format a Total Film EL as follows:

Let Me In at Total Film?

And as long as it is deemed to add value to Wikipedia, the link won't be removed?

I work for Total Film, so I'm afraid it's inevitable that my work will focus on TF's reviews. However I sincerely believe that TF's reviews would add value to Wikipedia, even if it's a member of staff uploading the links. The other page I have updated recently is the Total Film article page. I can see you've removed some of the ELs I added to the latter. All these links are available from the TF website but from a Wikipedia user's perspective, I thought it might be clearer to have the full range of links included in the EL section, especially since many of them point to different sites (Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter), rather than different areas of totalfilm.com. Would you consider reinstating the links for our Tumblr, Facebook and Twitter pages, since they are not totalfilm.com pages? NB I now understand that the Forum and App links would be deemed part of the official website. No problem if not; I just thought I'd check.

Ckatz, thank you for the information about contacting the editors at the film Wikiproject. I'll look into that right away. It would be good to work on being accepted as one of the "main" sites, particularly since TF has quite a British 'voice' and many of the other sites are US-based. I now appreciate that I may have been slightly over zealous in the uploading of TF ELs last week. Believe it or not, I wasn't just adding links randomly. I'd broken down our reviews into 3 sizes: small, medium and large (where small is about an eighth of a page and large is 1-2 pages of the mag). I only added links to our medium and large reviews, because I genuinely felt the smaller ones, at approx. 80 words, wouldn't add much value. If I focus on select key reviews, rather than a whole raft of reviews, and if I use the talk pages to engage in discussion, is it likely that our ELs might not be deleted? In all honesty, the criteria used to decide whether something adds value still seems a little unclear to me. Even if we use the talk pages to discuss/justify our links, are they likely to be deleted simply because we're not one of the "main" sites? Would someone read a TF review and then decide whether it adds value? We understand that these External Links won't alter our search engine rankings but we genuinely believe there is a place for ELs to Total Film reviews on many of the film article pages on Wikipedia.

Thank you both again. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards. LizHawkins (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there is no easy answer for this sort of thing. If you look at WT:WikiProject Spam you will see we are swamped by people adding external links (that page generally only has extreme and very recent cases). Contemplating the WP:SPA link I mentioned above shows that in general it is not possible to arrive at Wikipedia and start systematically adding links to some site without arousing a lot of pushback from people who do not like to see volunteer's work at Wikipedia exploited. It is best to proceed slowly by talking with people in the relevant WikiProject and getting support from established and independent editors. Since you have a conflict of interest you should ask established and independent to add links to your site. In principle, the issue of whether a certain external link should be added (and its format) should be settled by consensus on the talk page of each article. In practice it is unlikely that much discussion would occur on minor articles, so the wikiproject is best. You need to consider whether there is evidence that the site you are promoting provides value (do reliable sources describe the site as beneficial?). External links do not need to satisfy the "reliable sources" link I just mentioned, but such sources would be desirable to establish that your website does add value. There is no committee or established procedure for handling external links other than what has been described above, although you could get more opinions (after trying the WikiProject) at the external links noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on template

Hello. I noticed that you had added the {{hang on}} template to Total Film a few times. Another user removed it because that template is only used to save articles from speedy deletion. BurtAlert (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BurtAlert. I thought the Total Film article had been marked for speedy deletion. There was a flag at the top of the article page. I added the {{hang on}} template and then saw it had disappeared. I assumed I hadn't saved the page properly and added it again. Is the page not marked for speedy deletion? It's been flagged as reading like an ad but aside from one statement that had no source, which has now been removed, the rest is just fact-based info taken from the magazine. Is the problem that one person wrote it? (Me) Any advice you have would be most gratefully received.LizHawkins (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2011 (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/Fostering Through Social Enterprise.
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 help desk or via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declined article

Hi I was the one who declined your article. The issue which I listed was not that the source was valid and legitimate; its the requirement that significant press is required to meet notability. The news of a consortium, without specific notability doesn't yet warrant inclusion; if there is some more details on its duties and members then it could be added if it passes notability standards. The links to the existing members are flagged with multiple issues and conflict of interest. Prove the notability with press on the sources and I'll approve it; the reason for sources/notability are interchangeable often; I probably should have flagged yours for notability, but then I'd probably be responding to the fact that because it is the largest in UK that it is notable. It is almost passable; I just hate creating stubs in sections of limited information and want to make sure it doesn't become an Article for Deletion later on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC) (moved comment as I just noticed it was in the wrong section). ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fostering Through Social Enterprise concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fostering Through Social Enterprise, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Fostering Through Social Enterprise was accepted

Fostering Through Social Enterprise, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]