User talk:Mshellie

Welcome!

Hello, Mshellie, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Welcome to Wikiepdia, and thank you for your contributions. Please know that the fact that I am about to nominate VicSRC for deletion in no way reflects badly on your contributions here; it's just that we have policies we have to follow regarding what groups/people/things can have articles, and which cannot. Feel free to ask me questions here, on the article's talk page, or on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of VicSRC for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article VicSRC, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VicSRC until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Please don't remove the AfD Template[edit]

Hi again, Mshellie. I know that you want the article on VicSRC to be kept, but we do have to follow certain procedures here. One is that AfD templates (the thing I added to the article and which you just removed) are never allowed to be removed by anyone other than the administrator who closes that discussion (which will happen about 7 days from now). Instead, what you need to do if you want the article to be kept is add sources and then comment on the AfD discussion itself (the link can be found at the article). Please note that removing the template doesn't even really do anything--the deletion discussion now exists independent of that page, and will continue for 7 days or until consensus is determined. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you watchlisted the AfD discussion, so I wanted to post here to make sure that you check the new info I added. The problem is that the links added don't meet the guidelines for reliable sources, and thus don't demonstrated notability. See the discussion for suggestions about what would meet that requirement. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I believe that the above warning is flat out wrong, and I have restored your (Mshellie's) edits. I don't know whether or not they are sufficient to save the article for deletion; at this point, I'd like to let others join the discussion there before I say more. But I do thank you for trying to improve the article and not just giving up. Thanks, 12:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the rudeness, i am relatively new to Wikipedia. Anirudh Emani (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mshellie, and thank you for your contributions to the VicSRC article! WE NEED MORE EDITORS LIKE YOU ON WIKIPEDIA. Please don't let this incident scare you away. For the article in question, we need reliable sources to demonstrate the article topic's noteworthiness. These do not have to be online. Do you have any publications that show VicSRC's relevance beyond what is online? • Freechild'sup? 14:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Forgive Me

Please accept my most sincere apology for my behaviour at VicSRC. I have thought long and hard about what happened and I realise how very upset you must have been.

I am really sorry for creating the situation which I know I should have handled better. I admit that I was in the wrong and can only say how sorry I am. I can promise you that this will never happen again and hope that you will give me the opportunity to prove this to you.

I understand that it might be difficult for you to accept my apology but hope that this post will help.

Comment on notability[edit]

Just wanted to give you a pointer based on your comments on the AfD page. While it is true that, in a general sense, notability is in the "eye of the beholder," Wikipedia actually has fairly strict rules for notability. In this case, the key requirement is that the group must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (quoting from the general notability guidelines). Up to this point, you haven't shown that. A group publishing something is not "independent of the subject", that's the group itself writing an article. The is the same reason why not all journalists and writers are notable--just publishing something, even on a government site, doesn't make a person notable. Similarly, the Yikes article is published was written by a VicSRC member, thus it's not independent. The Educator's Guide to Innovation website is an announcement of a VicSRC meeting, which doesn't meet the definition of "significant coverage" (plus I'm not sure that they count as a reliable source anyway. The rest, except for the Education Directory, are all self published. One piece of independent coverage is not enough to establish notability in the way that Wikipedia defines it (which, for purposes of the AfD, is all that matters--not the regular use of the word). However, in the AfD you mentioned something about a "Connect article"--but nothing on VicSRC mentions that or references that. You may want to add that information and citation, as that will help (although not guarantee success). As always, feel free to ask me here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]