User talk:Finneggington3451

This is Finneggington3451's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lydia Alty (December 27)[edit]

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

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lydia Alty and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finneggington3451! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Finneggington3451![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Finneggington3451! I'm I dream of horses, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks its so lovely to have a mentor, shame the pages i am creating so far are being rejected. I hope you are well and i look forward to working with you. Finneggington3451 (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's really not advisable to write an article/draft as one of your first edits. The only reason why you're allowed is because people will inevitably do it anyways. Truthfully, it's better to just do the tutorials and newcomer tasks for a bit. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lydia Alty (December 28)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Tagishsimon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: You've gien it your best shot, and we concede that she's big in Buckinghamshire. But this article is much more about giving her publicity, than it is about her being notable. So it's not going to be promoted and I advise you to give up trying.

Tagishsimon (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Lydia Alty has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lydia Alty. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you could keep editing. Shame though she does deserve this article and is well known. We'll have to wait until their are more articles available. Thanks Roadislong for your comment. Finneggington3451 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a lot of people who "deserve" an article, but don't have one because they haven't been noted enough. Having an article on Wikipedia isn't always a good thing, anyways. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chalfont St Giles Village School[edit]

Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia. I've tagged your page Chalfont St Giles Village School as having notability concerns. At the moment the only sources cited in the article are the school's own website, government websites and the Ofstead report. None of these meet the requirements of the general notability guideline or the organisation notability guideline (i.e. published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject).

I suggest looking for news articles about the school as a starting point to find independent coverage. For example, were there any news articles about the awards the school received which are mentioned on its website? As the tag states, if sources can't be found, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. This isn't a reflection on your work, but simply that not all schools are notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any questions or if I can assist further. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article's now been nominated for speedy deletion, per below. If you want to contest the deletion, it will be best to find some reliable and independent sources to support the argument that it shouldn't be deleted. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chalfont St Giles Village School[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Chalfont St Giles Village School, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even give me a chance to edit it? This is a very well known thing that should be on Wikipedia, I literally found a ton of notable stuff, plus to rewrite it! You didn't even give me a chance to edit! Finneggington3451 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Isla Phillips[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Isla Phillips, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Phillips[edit]

Hi Finneggington3451,

Children who are in line to the British throne are generally not notable and you should generally avoid including unnecessary information about them on Wikipedia because they are not public figures and Wikipedia is not a genealogy.

Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your telling me children in like to a British Throne, who are some of the most famous people, in the world, are not allowed on Wikipedia which is a WORLDWIDE encyclopedia for FAMOUS people? I understand you aren't just a encyclopedia where any old famous person can get a page but surely children in line to the throne who appear on national television and are in general sone of the most famous children in the world can't get a page, could I possibly do it again and add TRUSTED secondary sources? I am surprised it got deleted? You shouldn't just delete it without letting me improve it. Firstly the others I put on, I am waiting till they have trusted secondary sources, but these children are Very well known. They have tons of secondary sources. Finneggington3451 (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a Wikipedia article about a person to be published, that person must be about a notable. A person is notable if there is significant coverage about that person in several independent, reliable sources. Coverage of a person is significant if the person is covered in depth in the source; passing mentions and routine news stories are generally not significant.

The only news coverage about Isla Phillips is mention of her in stories where she appeared in public because her parents are famous. Other than that, she is a private individual and not a notable public figure that needs her own Wikipedia article. Brief mention of her in the article about her father is appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as a British citizen, I kindly have to reject this. Both Savannah and Isla have significant coverage in the news. Both have appeared in BBC, ITV, People, Hello Magazine, etc they are famous and very notable. But if you find that them being with their father is suitable that's fine , but I don't understand why they don't have their own page, their parents and they are famous, you should look at Famous Birthdays. Finneggington3451 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a guideline, which I described above, that states what kinds of articles about individual persons can be published. Being famous or in the public does not mean that that person should have a Wikipedia article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right okay, so it's not about being famous, it's about being able to find notable sources. So like BBC or Local Newspapers doesn't cover it? Finneggington3451 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finneggington, ITV, People and Hello to the best of my knowledge are quite royal-centric and they'll lap up pretty much anything that the royals say or do, so of course at some point some minor royals are going to be included in their coverage or articles. That wouldn't really pass WP:SIGCOV in my eyes. A lot of people with inherited fame don't have articles. The most famous examples are Malia and Sasha Obama. The article you wrote was not brilliantly sourced: it used Alamy, Daily Mail, royal.uk, Daily Express and some (decent) local papers, which doesn't cut the mustard at BLP, especially for a child. If you want to help with articles about the British nobles and royals, WP:ROY and WP:BROY and Portal:Monarchy might be good places to cut your teeth. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for explaining it. So in general for just in general someone to have a article they must have notable sources? Finneggington3451 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not just that. It needs to be over a sustained period of time (people who went viral once or were famous for one event can't have articles) and it should be reported on by many different, reputable sources, not just one good paper. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Lydia Alty[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Lydia Alty, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Isla Phillips" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Isla Phillips has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 7 § Isla Phillips until a consensus is reached. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

——Serial 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Isla Phillips for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isla Phillips 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/Isla Phillips 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.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Lydia Alty[edit]

Hello, Finneggington3451. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lydia Alty, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]