User talk:Sabine McNeill

Welcome

Hi Sabine McNeill, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

MBisanz Good luck, and have fun. --MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Austin Mitchell MP.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Austin Mitchell MP.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Austin sm.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Austin sm.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public credit petition

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Public credit petition, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. -- Longhair\^talk 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a good girl

I feel terrified because I dared to delete the COI line after I deleted the reference to myself. Longhair commented but is too busy. At the time when I tried to upload Austin Mitchell MP's image I at least had some human contact from somewhere. I am totally lost in the wiki pages and feel very sad that I don't know where to get the right kind of help for the entry on the Public Credit Petition.

However, I am most grateful for Leahtwosaints who edited a broken link which I found out this way. What a life, this onlife existence...

Sighingly yours, whoever may read this whenever and wherever...

First NOTABILITY, then deletion for SELF-PROMOTION. That's the punishment one gets when one tries to do something for people and planet... Selflessly. Pity.

February 2009

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dear Cameron, I am sorry I hurt your editorial policy thinking. I just follow the "personal is political" mantra of early feminists. I also thought I'd provide some 'facts' since I noticed that 'citations were needed'. As a mathematician and system analysis I also happen to feel very strongly about monetary and financial issues and have put quite a lot of my energy into these voluntary activities. So it doesn't feel good to have my wrists slapped again. But keep doing it, I shall learn to live with this kind of power, too.

Oh please - spamming articles with links to your linkin profile isn't a political act, it's one of self-interest. If you persist, your links will be added to the spam blacklist and the system will automatically prevent their addition. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Forum for Stable Currencies

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Forum for Stable Currencies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability presented - run of the mill pressure group.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cameron! Any chance of letting me know what 'evidence of notability' means or how 'run of the mill pressure groups' are defined?

Notability would be provided by independent third party sources talking about the forum - so sources such as newspapers (Guardian, The Times, the evening standard etc etc), magazines (Economist) or notable websites such as the BBC etc etc - blogs and forum posts don't generally cut it. As for "run of the mill" - the article as written outlines what appears to be one of the main 100s of pressure groups/talking shops that operate around the political sphere at Westminster - most are not notable for our purposes because they are never covered by reliable independent sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Cameron! Sorry, we haven't tried to make it into the print media. But I understand that the editor of the FT wants to talk to me (after I produced another blog which I shall not mention).

I'm afraid I am blissfully unaware of those 100s of pressure groups / talking shops, except for SAFE, Struggle Against Financial Exploitation, to whom I gave a platform on many occasions. See http://www.safeonline.com/ I know they've made it into the media. But their site doesn't seem to have references either.

If you click on http://forumforstablecurrencies.org.uk you'll find that we've also been a 'writing shop'... :)

Is the conclusion that no NGO can be included unless they've been written about, i.e. "noted" by the media? Live, type and learn!

Pretty much - but it's not just NGOs, the same applies to books, films, comics, organisations, buildings, makes of watches etc etc - If a reliable third party source hasn't written about it, then it's not suitable for an article. There are long boring internal debates about if we should actually have a notability standard but currently the internal thinking is "yes we should". --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, Cameron, I'm reminded of a judge pointing out that there had not been a precedent to my case against my landlord...

You may find it amusing that I was asked to write an article for a magazine in Malaysia. But PUBLISHED by a 'reliable third party' won't count either, will it? In any case, I shall try to remember to visit this page should the Forum be mentioned 'officially'. Will you be notified then?

With many thanks for your care-ful explanations, Sabine [passionate about blogging!]

Dear Cameron et al,

After more reflection, and in anticipation of my article being deleted, I just thought I'd draw your attention to the CONTENT while you're objecting to 'run of the mill pressure group' and 'not noted by mainstream media'.

We have been raising awareness, and only with our recent online petition that is targeted at the Treasury Select Committee do we 'pressurize'. I do wish there were more 'pressure groups' focussing on monetary reform around Westminster. But the powers that be are financial and unaccountable. E.g. my contribution to "quantitative easing" in Wikipedia was anonymously deleted. I wrote an article for BlogCritics on that. See [1] Hijacking the language is part of the game.

The media are, of course, caught by this money as credit, created out of thin air, more and more used as a means to control than an medium of exchange.

Given the crisis, our main chance and hope is therefore the net and the web. But I shall not cry after after my entry in Wikipedia. I'm just "raising awareness" among whoever reads this, hoping to prevent the kinds of prejudices that I've run into.

The problem is this - we simply don't care - well it's more than that, we *cannot* care. Our aim is not to provide a platform for campaigning, it's to provide an encyclopedia that has a neutral point of view, so we take no stance of the merits on what you are doing - we can't, it's not our purpose.

As for the removals from quantitative easing, simply put, we don't use blogs as sources (well we do but not for that type of material) and your additions just looked like more self-promotion. I would have removed them on that basis as would other editors. Let me put it another way, I'm a published author and accepted expert in a certain area of the information sciences, however I *never* add my own work to articles (and it wouldn't be removed as it's in peer reviewed journals) as it's just self-promotion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're lucky, Cameron: you're not a woman! A woman told me that "your problem is that you're too intelligent" and a government official told me that "you're a threat because you're a woman on your own".

Understanding and analysing the term "quantitatve easing" has NOTHING to do with self-promotion. If I wanted to use Wikipedia to promote Self, I would have put an article in on Self, not the Forum for Stable Currencies.

You are acting on other principles than I do. My motor is different from yous. I can only hope that you enjoy yours at least as much as I enjoy mine!

The article you created was just deleted?

All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now:

Special:Log/delete Enter the name of the article, then click "Go"

First, find out why your article was deleted:
- On this log page, once you enter the name of your page, this will show you who deleted it and why.
- If the reason doesn't make sense, try clicking any links on the reason, or you can ask by typing {{help}} followed by your question on your talk page. Or you can ask any administrator to tell you why it was deleted.^[1]
If you still think your article belongs on Wikipedia, you can try to fix the reasons it was deleted. Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy. Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues. (Do this before you repost your article back under its name, or it may be deleted again!)
Finally, if you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, the burden will be on you to show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong.

How to fix reasons for deletion
^ 1.If your article is deleted because of notability, it was deleted because you didn't give us enough information to confirm that people had published articles, books, or other publications to verify the claims your article made. You'll simply need to find some published articles that covered the subject of your article. While this may not be possible for some subjects (your cat, your garage band), you'd be surprised how easy it is, and people are happy to help on the help desk or in projects like the Article Rescue Squadron if you ask politely and tell them as much as you can. 2. If your article was deleted because it was a "copyvio", or copyright violation, an administrator removed it because it violated someone's copyright on their work. Only public domain information can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images. You can rewrite the article so that it is no longer a copyright violation, you can request permission from the copyright holder to republish their work, or if and only if you are the copyright holder you can donate your work to the project or release it under a license compatible with Wikipedia's.

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

WELCOME

from a Article Rescue Squad member

Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Sabine McNeill, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here:

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue
Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found

I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting an article?

duplicating from User talk:Moonriddengirl for convenience.

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Thanks to the magic of wiki-working, I was 'rescued' from what a friendly Wikipedian, after I had an article deleted. The reason was 'run of the mill pressure group' with not enough notability.

I picked you because of your intriguing name. Would you be willing to look at my talk page and see how I 'gave in'? Would you be willing to repair the article on Forum for Stable Currencies? Or help userfy it first of all?

Looking forward to your response,

your Wikipedian baby and most willing learner,

Sabine

Sabine McNeill (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) I'm online and looking into it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The article was deleted via "proposed deletion". It is standard procedure to restore those on request, and I have done so. However, I've also userfied it for now to allow the concerns that led to its deletion to be addressed. If the article remains in article space without attention, it may be nominated for a deletion discussion, and if it closes for "deletion", establishing it anew will be much more challenging. You can find it here: User:Sabine McNeill/Forum for Stable Currencies. Having noted that, I'll now start yet another message with some recommendations, as I may not be able to personally repair the article but might give you some pointers. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You've been here for a while, so please forgive me if I tell you something you already know. I'd rather overexplain that miss something important.

Articles on organizations of all kinds are governed by the notability guidelines at WP:ORG. Paraphrasing closely from that guideline, non-commercial organizations are generally regarded as notable if (1) they are national or international in scale, and (2) information on them is verifiable through reliable, independent sources. This isn't restricted to print sourcing; web sources can also count, but the rule of thumb is that these must be independent of the forum (no press releases) and "reliable" by Wikipedia's definition. Websites hosted by you would not work for this, obviously.

I'm on limited time tonight, but I've added one RS. A google book search shows several potentially usable hits. These look independent and reliable, though some of them are redundant and not all of them will do much good. Can you explain what this one is talking about? Google news has what seems to be 3 good hits, here, but I can't access two of them (the other one, I utilized). I'm a pretty conservative article creator; I like lots of sources to nail notability. Even to me, though, it looks like you've got a good start. I can't guarantee it, but I think you'd stand a chance. Can you by any chance access those subscription-only print sources? Those could go a really long way. The book hits are proving a bit sketchy.

The second problem, of course, is your involvement with the subject. I'm willing to help you work with such sources as we can find, but on the conflict matter you might wish to seek feedback at the conflict of interest noticeboard. More than once, I have seen contributors with conflict ask the volunteers there to review articles in sandbox and move them into article space if they are judged to be neutral and adequately sourced. Usually, the agreement of volunteers seems to forestall the ugly "COI" tag that can be dropped on articles otherwise. You would do better to neutrally seek feedback on the conflict issue at the conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN) than to ask me. Administrators have no particular weight on judging such matters, and contributors at COIN are likely to have more experience evaluating such things.

Another resource you might want to look into is the Article Rescue Squadron. Their project has a talk page, Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. (I see they've already made contact with you. :)) The contributors to it may be willing to offer you and feedback and assistance, too.

Must run! Non-internet life calls. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take the liberty of moving this conversation to your page, since mine archives fairly often. I'll pick up there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Now that I have, I've been working further to bring this article in line with Wiki's various policies & guidelines. Is it possible for you to access this book? It isn't readily available where I am in the US suburbs. :) It seems that page 126 may provide a reliable source to support the organization's hosting Yunus, but I can't verify that. You did have a listing for a blog at the bottom, but as it turns out to be by you, I can't use it. I cannot access the two subscription only news sources above, either. Please let me know if you can.

I've done some cleaning of the article, which includes removing some links and material that don't fit with our usual article profile. As you'll no doubt see, I've also added what reliable sources I can access.

I'll be watching your talk page so we can continue this conversation here. If by chance you leave me a note to which I don't respond, please drop me a line at my talk. I watch a good many pages, and it's always possible I'll miss something. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine!

What a ball of sunlight you are, dear Moon ridden Girl!!! I LOVE your comments, explanations and changes, and I wish I was as fluent with Wikipedia tags as you are!

Yes, I do have a copy of that green report published by the Treasury Select Committee. But I don't know whether it's worth trying to lay my hands on the New Statesman. However, I could conceivably track down David Boyle, the author. What's the purpose?

No, I didn't know about .ORG and I'd rather accept those rules than 'run of the mill pressure group'. Cameron's style was not friendly, and the person who rescued me called him an e-bully, for he had done similar things to him...

Yes, my involvement with the subject is pure passion.

I shall draw COIN's attention to the userfied page next, ok?

Yours most gratefully,

Sabine Sabine McNeill (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my pleasure; I'm happy if I'm able to help. :) The primary purpose of tracking down sources is to include them in the article, basically. Wikipedians have evolved a philosophy that boils down to "If somebody else is writing about them, we'll write about them, too." (That is the core essence of our notability guideline, from which all of our other notability guidelines basically descend.) Every good source you can include that finds the Forum worth talking about is evidence that the Forum belongs here.

With the Treasury Select Committee, can you tell me what it says on page 179 where the words "Forum for Stable Currencies" & "Muhamad Yunus" intersect? I know that they do, but I have no idea how. :) If it confirms Yunus as a speaker for the Forum, then we can cite to that. (Even if it doesn't, if it says something of use about the Forum, it's worth including.)

On closer examination, it turns out that one of those New Statesmen articles is the same as the one I could access (available here; pay per view here). So it's not necessary to bother Danny Boyle. :) I don't know if the other one has anything substantial to offer or not. All I can read of it is "speaks at the second of a series of meetings on Islamic banking and the creation of money organised by the Forum for Stable Currencies." If the article had any more to say than that, I could probably use it to craft a little more detail, but if it's not easily accessible it may not be worth it. If that's all it has to say, there's not much to draw from it.

Before getting COIN involved to take a look, I would suggest checking out page 179 of the book first. The more reliable sources utilized to substantiate claims, the better. Just let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, checking

The Treasury Select Committee's report reproduces the publication that I put also here. I do not spot Yunus in there, and I only organised the Yunus event in Feb 2008. So it couldn't have been mentioned.

The Yunus event is best described here. Another record is here I did NOT build that website! :)

Is it worth quoting "The Forum for Stable Currencies has been meeting monthly in the House of Lords for two years now, attracting leading figures from the world of small business and across the political spectrum" from the New Statesman article?

You will be pleased to see Cameron Scott's comment on COIN!!!

Yours most gratefully again, Sabine McNeill (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like things went well at the conflict of interest board. :) I'm glad that Cameron Scott also feels the article is okay now. But please try not to harbor any ill will towards his PROD. I know it's hard not to take something like that personally, but as I read his comments above he seems to me to have been attempting to explain to you what was required even if he didn't explicitly point out the actual guideline. I really doubt he intended to give offense; many contributors wouldn't have bothered to even watch your page after placing the PROD on the article to respond to your questions. Sometimes articles don't belong on Wikipedia, and sometimes they look like they don't. While it's a very nice feeling to have been able to help here, I have myself deleted over 6,000 articles as an admin. That means there are probably a couple of thousand people who regard me as an e-bully, too. I promise you; it's not my desire to be unkind...or I wouldn't have put a couple of hours in here on a topic that is far out of my area. :D It's just an unfortunate byproduct of trying to produce a quality encyclopedia.

As far as the article is concerned and where it goes now, I've already quoted what seems to be the really relevant bit from that New Statesmen line in the entry of the article. I also have already linked the "Green Credit" report in the "external links" section. The first link for Yunus suggests that the site is by you, here, which would make it related to this organization. Of course, the Forum for Stable Currencies website is already linked at the bottom, so there's no need to "reference" it above. I've removed the redundant links as per the suggestion at COIN. It looks as though concerns of conflict have been neutralized. Notability is asserted, if not strongly nailed. It should be clear of speedy deletion concerns, and if it is nominated for deletion debate should stand a chance. (At that point, community consensus would decide if it meets policies & guidelines—a far more stressful process than PROD. :/) Given all that, I'm going to go ahead and move it into article space.

To continue to avoid the ugly "COI" banner (I think it's ugly, anyway; if you want to judge for yourself see Template:COI; it suggests that the article is not to be trusted and there's something dodgy going on behind the scenes), you'll want to add conservatively with good unconnected sources. But please do add, especially as more books and press talk about you. :) I presume you'll be in a good position to know if that happens. If something comes up that you worry might be perceived as a conflict of interest—if the Forum becomes involved in something contentious, say—it's probably a good idea to follow some of the Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance. Basically, if it's likely to be perceived as you bragging or trying to hide something bad, you should bring it up at the article's talk page first. :) If nobody is watching the talk page, as often happens, you should also add {{Request edit}} next to your note there, which will bring along a volunteer to respond. And if that doesn't work, as sometimes happens, you make a note at COIN again asking somebody to help out. Some hoops to jump through, I know, but the goal is creating a good article with solid information about your organization that won't be labeled as "spam" or biased.

Okay. I'm off to move the article and add the final polish (categories at the bottom of the article, project(s) on the talk page). I'm still watching here, though, if you want to talk about any of this. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are complete sterling, wonderful Moon Ridden Girl!!! Thank You sooo much for 'exhibiting neutrality' to compensate for my German / Slavic passion.

I had no idea how much is happening in the background of Wikipedia articles!!!

Two more of my Wikipedia footprints

Having discovered that now, I would be most grateful if you could look into two other articles where I felt I had my wrist slapped:

Quantitative easing and social business

In the first, my text was deleted.

In the second, I tried to balance the other person who has kind of hijacked the definition his way.

Would love to look over your shoulder as you're ensuring quality in Wikipedia! Do you have a site that describes you and non-Wikipedia work somewhere?

With all my gratitude,

Sabine

No external sites. :) I maintain strict anonymity on Wiki because not all of what I do is popular. I've got family, and it was a condition of family support for my admin "candidacy". :) There's a tiny bit of personal detail on me here. (My username has been an accidental problem, though; based on a poem by Denise Levertov, it is not unique and I'm afraid that at least one poor blogger out there with the same username was harassed on my account. :/ If I were registering now, I should be JaneDoe73 or something.) There is massive backstructure at Wikipedia and a complex interweaving web of policies & guidelines. We are also insanely political, with all kinds of fora and elections and debates...all in the interest of producing a free encyclopedia. :) I bet Encyclopedia Britannica has a much calmer workspace. But, then, we're bigger. The English language Wikipedia alone has 2,761,887 articles and 9,045,629 registered users. Kind of a jaw dropping number!

If it makes you feel any better, one of my earliest contributions to Wikipedia was deleted, too. Before I registered, I remember adding enthusiastically to an article about a song that it was "the perfect example of its type." It was rightly removed as my own, unsourced opinion. I'm sure I also occasionally get that jaded, "Oh, come on!" feeling when I see people doing things I know very well now aren't allowed, but I try very hard to remember my own humble beginnings when I had no idea there were "content guidelines." (The stuff at the bottom of the edit screen that says "Please note," honestly, might as well not be here.)

Your contributions to Quantitative easing were removed for various reasons. Here one turned up "dead" evidently. Had it not, it probably would have been removed with the other one anyway. This one was moved per our external links guidelines: "in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent — even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." With the other article, you seem to have run into a bit of the same thing, but otherwise it looks like you're part of the ordinary evolution of an article. I wouldn't feel wrist-slapped by that. You add; others take away. Others add; you take a way. So the consensus process goes. :) I notice that some of your language remains: "A social business is driven to bring about change while pursuing profits" is still in the article; before you got there, it said, "A social business is driven to bring about change as opposed to profit driven." I guarantee you that your writing will be edited mercilessly (one of the warning under the "Please note" section at the bottom of the edit screen that I didn't read until I'd been Wikiing for many months). Sometimes it will come out better, and sometimes it won't. We have all kinds of guidelines and policies addressing how to handle it: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, Wikipedia:Ownership.... Part of the reason we have all those is because it's a constant issue. Another, Wikipedians are largely a verbal bunch. :)

By the way, since you seem interested, I'll point out from that "welcome mat" left for you by somebody at the top of the page a really concise summary of Wikipedia's guidelines & policies can be found at Wikipedia:Five pillars. That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. And typically Wikipedia, it links to dozens of other pages. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You soo much for these enlightening words! Most revealing indeed! Please know that I used to subscribe to Encyclopaedia Britannica and felt I didn't need it any more. So to appreciate that web of editors in the background is actually enormously reassuring to guard quality.

I'm most impressed by your own encyclopaedic mind and salute your husband for giving you the freedom to let your mind play not only to your heart's content, but also for the benefit of the larger whole.

Until the next wiki-encounters,

Sabine McNeill (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to ARS!

Hi, Sabine McNeill, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 21:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

General notability guideline

Dear Wikipedia Helpers

As I've just noticed the alarming article, I tried to add some text, but need serious help with the references that are currently not ok.

But maybe it'll be alright in the morning...

Nite. Nite.

Sabine

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover \| Feature \| News and announcements \| Humor \| Want ads
To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Sabine McNeill! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Forced adoption in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Forum for Stable Currencies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Forum for Stable Currencies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forum for Stable Currencies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jfire (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[reasons-1] 1.If your article is deleted because of notability, it was deleted because you didn't give us enough information to confirm that people had published articles, books, or other publications to verify the claims your article made. You'll simply need to find some published articles that covered the subject of your article. While this may not be possible for some subjects (your cat, your garage band), you'd be surprised how easy it is, and people are happy to help on the help desk or in projects like the Article Rescue Squadron if you ask politely and tell them as much as you can.
2. If your article was deleted because it was a "copyvio", or copyright violation, an administrator removed it because it violated someone's copyright on their work. Only public domain information can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images. You can rewrite the article so that it is no longer a copyright violation, you can request permission from the copyright holder to republish their work, or if and only if you are the copyright holder you can donate your work to the project or release it under a license compatible with Wikipedia's.

[1]