User talk:Cakebread

Welcome!

Hello, Cakebread, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Cakebread, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ironholds (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Cakebread[edit]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Cakebread, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caca[edit]

Hi, Cakebread. The person who deleted the entry before actually already gave you explanations: it is a circular non-link and a non-article. What this means is that the Caca page is a disambiguation page, and disambiguation pages are supposed to adhere to the guidelines described here. In short, the entry should lead to an article, and it should not be a mere dictionary definition. I will remove the entry once again. Please do not restore it—unfortunately, there is no way to make it work, as dictionary definitions belong in Wiktionary, not in the encyclopedia. Also, on a slightly unrelated note, please mind the three revert rule—no one is supposed to do more than three identical reverts to the same page in a 24-hour period. Please don't hesitate to contact me or Bkonrad should you have any further questions, and I hope your next experience around here will be a tad more pleasant :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 14:59 (UTC)

You cannot write an article about your entry for two reasons. First, the link you included in the entry points right back to the disambiguation page on which the entry is placed (which renders the link inoperative). Second, an article which only says something like "Caca is Old English for something round" would also be deleted, because articles are not supposed to consist solely of a dictionary definitions, per this. You need to go to the Wiktionary with this, not here. Wikipedia is supposed to include information, true, but not any and all information.

As for the Latin description, please notice that it is included in the "see also" section, not together with the main entries. Also, it leads to a quite valid and informative article on Latin profanity, which is a subject and in out itself. There is no similar topic to which your Old English definition could be similarly redirected.

And on the Chinese anti-cancer association you are quite right; thansk for pointing it out. I have deleted that entry as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

Libcaca is OK because it is not a dictionary definition and because it meets the conditions set by the guideline dealing with the red links on disambiguation pages. Your entry was not a valid link (so it could not possibly meet those conditions) and it was a dictionary definition, which are explicitly disallowed, be it on disambiguation pages or as "articles". As for the Latin profanity article, it is not just dictionary definitions of various Latin words. It is an overview of Latin profanity in general, along with the list of words illustrating the subject, each of which has background information in addition to the dictionary definition.

To answer your question, if you manage to write an article for which academic coverage approaches that for Latin profanity, and if the word "caca" can reasonably be expected to serve as a redirect to that article, then yes, you can add a link to the "see also" section. Note, however, that the article should be encyclopedic and about a notable subject. If you are working on something like "list of Old English words dealing with shapes", that won't do. That's not an academic subject, and it will be deleted rather quickly; because of this. At any rate, entries to disambiguation pages should normally be added after the article is written, not before, unless compelling, obvious, or easily explainable reasons exist to do otherwise (and even then editors who are not as liberal with the disambiguation pages as yours truly would likely disagree). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2011; 03:30 (UTC)

If the article you mean is cakebread, it was deleted because it was perceived as vandalism. I don't know anything about that surname, but I can see how the article in the state you submitted it could be perceived as vandalism. What you needed is a better reference to support what the article was saying—the only link you gave was to a website which does not qualify as a reliable source by a long stretch. Surely you should know of an academic, verifiable source to support that article? If you could point me to such a source, I can help you format and reference the article properly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2011; 14:15 (UTC)

Cacabred has not yet been deleted; it is up for deletion. From what I see, unless you add sources which are truly reliable (as opposed to two random website of dubious quality), deletion will be the outcome. If this last name is so ancient as you are claiming, surely you should be able to add a reference to a book or two as opposed to the links you have provided so far?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2011; 19:56 (UTC)