User talk:Prenton1969

Prenton1969, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Prenton1969! 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 experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Tale of Januarie has been accepted

The Tale of Januarie, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Yellow Sofa

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 Draft:The Yellow Sofa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.glyndebourne.com/education/about-glyndebourne-education/education-projects/commissions/the-yellow-sofa-2009/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Yellow Sofa

I have noted that the draft of the Yellow Sofa is re-submitted for review. I have chosen not to review it at present because my only option would be to reject the draft. The key issue is notability. Wikipedia has a very specific interpretation of notability which require several (preferably many) independent and reliable sources, and these sources must be talking about the subject, not just mentioning it. Good examples would be a review in The Guardian, a discussion piece by the BBC on one of the few arts programmes or on Radio 3, or even, for the Covent Garden production, a review or discussion in one of the London papers. Best avoided are the tabloids, Daily Mail and Daily Express which are deemed to convey no notability. At present the references are highly affiliated and do not convey notability as Wikipedia understands it. Incidentally, its good to see the copyright violation issue dealt with. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I understand. Thanks so much. There were reviews in the Guardian, and Telegraph so I will add links to those. Also in the TLS and Ipera Magazine, but they’re not available online. So I will try and address the notability issue as you suggest. Thank you for your helpful feedback.

References in the printed press but which are not on-line are fine. They simply have to be reliable sources discussing the topic - they don't have to be accessible by all Wikipedia readers. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also taken the liberty of adding a reference and formatting one of the existing refs. If you can add the Guardian or Times reference I suspect it would be good to go. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much - that's great. I will add in the Times/Guardian/Telegraph reviews and will make sure the references are formatted consistently.

I've now added links to reviews in the Guardian, TLS and Daily Telegraph but also online reviews on Classical Source and Arts Desk. I've also corrected a chronology error. Let me know if the footnote formatting is correct - if not, I'll amend. Thank you for all your help with this.

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Yellow Sofa has been accepted

The Yellow Sofa, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Prenton1969. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]