User talk:Ice Gonelevu

Welcome!

Hello, Ice Gonelevu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ice Gonelevu:, I suggest you start with Wikipedia Adventure, as mentioned by Ian.thomson. As it is the most friendly, make sure you try this with a computer and not a mobile device. Endercase (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Constituency PP-47 (Bhakkar-I), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

You should read these and show them to your teacher:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism. Paraphrase sources, do not steal text from them.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. This is intentional.
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
It is recommended that you do not add anything relating to yourself to article space, and it is expressly forbidden to use Wikipedia to promote anything about yourself. Personal websites are generally not allowed in external links.

The issue of notability (in bold above) is what determines whether or not we allow an article to exist -- so please tell your teacher that the assignment (at least as you explained it) appears to conflict with our site policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: They could create an article in a sandbox couldn't they? Endercase (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes are for material that will ultimately someday be part of an article, even if it's learning formatting that will be used for articles. Material that doesn't go into articles (and even material that has gone into articles) is eventually blanked or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ice Gonelevu

A tag has been placed on User:Ice Gonelevu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted partly because this user's page is less than a full day old. They have asked for help at the Teahouse, that should be allowed that to play out. @Theroadislong: Please review WP:UP#DELETE --Endercase (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: Your deletion was out of order. The speedy deletion was contested. It is likely you did not notice this. Endercase (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have, with the exception of five edits made some years ago, very limited editing experience here, I will not take offence at your phraseology, nor at your lack of understanding of deletion policy. Please note: the deleted content was not appropriate for a userpage; contest of the deletion request is immaterial if the deletion is appropriate, which this one was; the account remains active and unblocked (accounts cannot be deleted ever) and contact with the teahouse, or indeed creation of suitable user page or articles remains a viable option.The deleted text appears to be the stub of an article. The text remains available, and can be restored on nthe editor's talk page, with a view to correctly placed submission, if s/he so requests.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: Of course I haven't seen the deleted page, but if you thought that "the deleted text appears to be the stub of an article", does it really qualify for speedy deletion under U5? As a plausible draft you might have suggested moving it from the user page to a user subpage or to draft space, but speedy deletion in such a case seems a draconian response to a new user's contribution. Or have I misunderstood what it says at WP:U5 and at WP:UP#DELETE which is linked from it? --David Biddulph (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have already asked the author if s/he wants the text moved to his/her talk page; I await his/her response.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]