ClarityRandom

Hi ClarityRandom! 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 Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

01:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elizabeth Dore (October 25)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No proof that she meets WP:NPROF, the relevant notability guideline.

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:Elizabeth Dore and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Elizabeth Dore, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Helen Steel and primary sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I haven't had a chance to look at the additional sources yet, but I did want to comment briefly about the prior ones, specifically as to whether they are primary or secondary. The two sources on the revision that I looked at that actually mention Steel were this Guardian piece and this advocacy piece. In hindsight, the piece in The Guardian is not primary; I was thrown off by the headline which made it seem as if the article was going to be entirely a primary source account. The advocacy piece, however, is a primary source. I'm skeptical that it's appropriate to have a biography for Steel separate from McLibel case, as there doesn't seem to be any coverage of Steel in contexts unrelated to that case, but I'll refrain from taking any further action until I've had a chance to review the additional sources provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Rosguill ^talk

Thanks for replying so quickly. Not sure which country you are from, and so know about the spycops scandal and undercover police inquiry in the UK, but it is very big news (we only have public inquiries in the UK very very rarely, if the state is implicated in very serious potentially unlawful action against its citizens. (So the other public inquiries in recent years are into Bloody Sunday, and the Grenfell Tower Fire). That Steel has been central to both that scandal, and McLibel, and that the spycops operation was not due to Mclibel but to other environmental activism with Greenpeace, I think does make her notable. She is very well known figure in the history of UK activism in the last 3 decades. I'm carrying on adding citations. Bear with me? And then lets discuss again if you still have doubts? It is more likely that I'm not giving her enough credit rather than she is not notable! Will repeat this on her talk page

ClarityRandom The additional sources are a step in the right direction. However, I do want to clarify one thing which you may have been unclear (and I apologize if you're already familiar with this), but notability has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia; it is not a synonym for important or significant, but rather is a measure of the amount of attention that a subject has received from reliable sources. Specifically, the general litmus test is known as the general notability guide aka GNG. Based on your arguments, it is possible that Steel is notable, but that remains to be seen from the sources that can be assembled. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes I was looking at the notability criteria, and was considering that Steel was notable for her central role in 2 particularly notable - 'events': the policing inquiry (spycops) and McLibel - which are both very important in terms of current affairs. There are tonnes of reliable references to her in the McLibel Article, (which I didn't think were necessary to just reproduce on this page - do you think they should be added in to Steel's article?). There's loads about her in the Spycops coverage too - I'll add more references as I go ClarityRandom (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just to add I seem to be getting conflicting information about the criteria for notability - so I'm guessing the criteria are interpreted differently by different people - but there are just loads of reputable reliable sources for Helen Steel, you could just carry on going for months and there must be appoint where you stop. Shouldn't this conversation be on the talk page of Steels article though so others can see it? I will copy our conversation over to there, and lets discuss it there where other contributers can see it ClarityRandom (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your thread has been archived

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi ClarityRandom! You created a thread called Help re abuse of a page at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your thread has been archived

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi ClarityRandom! You created a thread called Cant see a save button on my preferences pages at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Found a suspicious account. Shenme (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC

Shenme Hi I replied to this, and to the complainant, on the wikipedia administrators noticeboards along the following lines: If making a complaint because you dont like the content of peoples edits it doesn't mean they are a suspicious account, ask for citations rather than accusing people of bad faith. Also check you have a basic understanding of the articles subject before complaining about edits made to it.

Welcome!

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from RichardWeiss! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome ~ R.T.G 23:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Draft:Elizabeth Dore concern

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Elizabeth Dore, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic