User talk:Michellem024

Welcome!

A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop. — The Wikipede and the Picture Tutorial. *(image credit)*

Welcome!

Hello, Michellem024, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...

...wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
...wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. DangerousPanda D P 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michellem024, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Michellem024! 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) 16:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm Katieh5584. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Tommy Malone, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Katieh5584 (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tommy Malone with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Katieh5584 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Tommy Malone with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Katieh5584 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Malone

Please note that Wikipedia has very specific content rules. Firstly, an article may not be written in the promotional tone you chose to use on Tommy Malone; it must be written in an encyclopedic tone. Secondly, the article must be referenced to reliable sources which properly demonstrate his notability — if all you've got for sources is his own website and that of his record label, then that is not appropriate sourcing for a Wikipedia article. It doesn't matter how many times you try to recreate the same article — if it doesn't meet our content standards, then it doesn't get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you don't see how the version that you wrote the first two times was promotional in nature, then all I can suggest is that you go to Category:Biography (musicians) articles by quality and spend some time reading some articles in the FA, GA or A classes to see how different the writing tone is there.

And secondly, a person's own website — or his profile on the webpage of his record label — are not reliable sources for a Wikipedia article. Not because they're likely to be inaccurate, but because they're not sufficiently independent of the subject to properly demonstrate his notability. "Notability" on Wikipedia is conferred by independent sources — newspapers, music magazines, etc. — which do not have a vested interest in the subject choosing to devote resources and space to covering him; it cannot be demonstrated by a person's own self-published promotional materials, because then we'd have to keep a Wikipedia article about every single person who's ever put up any sort of profile on the internet at all. Notability also isn't conferred by inclusion in Allmusic, because their inclusion criteria effectively include almost everybody who's ever recorded an album at all and are not as specific as ours are. And Wikipedia is not a place where anybody is automatically entitled to an article just because they exist.

For Tommy Malone to qualify for an independent article instead of a redirect to his band, you need to demonstrate, through the use of reliable independent sources, that he actually meets one or more of the criteria listed at WP:NMUSIC (note also the part of that document where it says that musicians who are notable only as members of bands get redirected to the band, not independent articles, until they establish sufficient properly sourced notability independently of the band.)

So no, it's not that he can never have an article — he's just not entitled to keep the version of an article that you've been trying to add. If you or somebody else can write a proper version that satisfies our content policies around maintaining a neutral point of view instead of a promotional marketing tone, the use of reliable sources rather than self-published ones, the criteria that determine the notability of musicians, and on and so forth, then he'd be entitled to keep that new version — but nobody is entitled to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform.

Your best bet, as a relatively new editor, would be to use the WP:AFC process, so that established Wikipedia editors who are actively involved in that process can give you feedback and guidance on how to improve the article if necessary. Hope that helps. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]