User talk:Yellowmug7

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Thecavendishschool. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Cavendish School, Camden

Hello Thecavendishschool,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Cavendish School, Camden for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jodamaster (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jodamaster (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Username issue

Please see the links below to fix your username. Thanks for being willing to fix it.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Thecavendishschool", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Thecavendishschool. Please do take care of changing your username, per the section above. Once you do that, I can walk you through the conflict of interest disclosure and management process here in Wikipedia. (one thing at a time!) Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've changed my username and am aware I have to create an unbiased article. --Thecavendishschool (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are all listed here Special:Contributions/Thecavendishschool - I don't see that you requested a username change.... Where do you believe you changed it? We can talk about COI in Wikipedia when this is done... ("Being aware" is not enough to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines) Jytdog (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did you maybe do it with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalRenameRequest ? Please do reply, we should talk about your draft article too - it is going to get fragged and we can save a lot of drama if we take certain steps... Jytdog (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on a link to request a new username? (Yep, and received the meeage 'Your username change request is currently in progress and awaiting approval by a steward.' Happy to do again though. Also happy to be talked through COI issues, and thanks! --Thecavendishschool (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No that is fine, I wouldn't your completing that form in your contribs (there is another way to change a username.. my confusion - sorry!)

Before we get into the COI management thing. About the article you created. That article is really not ready to be "live" and you would be able to work on it in peace, if we move it to "draft space". Is that OK with you? If we don't do that, people are going to try to delete it, and somewhat rightly because it really isn't ready yet. Would that be OK with you? (I am asking this now to stave off potential turmoil, which I reckon is pretty imminent) Just let me know, and I can do it swiftly Jytdog (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine! Move away --Thecavendishschool (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all done. It is now in draft space Draft:The_Cavendish_School,_Camden and i have put speedy delete tags on the former article and its Talk page, so they will be out of the way once the article is ready to go back into what we call "main space". Thanks for agreeing to that!

Alright, so that we have time to breathe....

As I mentioned, Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose your connection with the school? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond we can move on to implementing that disclosure, then talk about the "peer review" part. Jytdog (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yep, I'm the admissions admistrations officer.--Thecavendishschool (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the username change went through! That was fast. Nice name btw :) OK, great, So here is how to implement the disclosure. On your Userpage, User:Yellowmug7, please make the disclosure. Something simple like: "I work for The Cavendish School, Camden." (that is a bluelink now, but will soon be a redlink after it is deleted... but when it goes live it will of course be blue again). I will put the relevant tag on the draft article's Talk page. That will take care of the disclosure piece. Back in a sec... Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd step

I added a tag at Draft talk:The Cavendish School, Camden, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is what I call "peer review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world.

What we ask editors to do, who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes (which is what we now doing; this is good for many reasons, as good things usually are); and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI (for instance, the article on the school after it goes live again) we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want - and I hope you do).

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the school has offices) you can do that directly in the article after it goes live, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the Cavendish School article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, yep, I agree to the peer review processes.--Yellowmug7 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works, and give you some advice about creating the article. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing)
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article. I reckon this will be of special interest to you.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or the one for draft article Draft_talk:The_Cavendish_School,_Camden

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

SO... Anytime you want to create an article, here is what to do. I have added some annotations to this process as the article is already started....

look for independent sources that comply with WP:RS, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources.
Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule and WP:NOTABILITY to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there as it is unlikely that the community will accept an article.
Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For the article you are working on, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines.
Create the article in draft space. Create the talk page, and disclose your COI there. (this is done already)
Forget everything you already know, and start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide a citation for each sentence as you go. (I suggest you erase what you have done and start over, but you will do as you will, of course)
Make sure you write in neutral language.
When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article. (I already did that)
The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
Submit your article for review via the WP:AFC process - again I can help there if you like. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Cavendish School, Camden (May 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Cavendish School, Camden and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yellowmug7, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Cavendish School, Camden

Hello, Yellowmug7. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Cavendish School".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]