User talk:Sonoran Mamma

Welcome!

Hello, Sonoran Mamma, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TParis00ap (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009[edit]

Please do not remove the speedy deletion template. If you continue to do so, I will report you to the Administrators' noticeboard.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to do anything wrong. I don't understand why it was there. I shan't do it again. I'm trying to understand why the request for deletions is there.Sonoran Mamma (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page explains why someone has nominated the page for deletion; basically, it looks like you're trying to publish your own work or advertise something here, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: The_Masque-_An_Erotic_Renaissance[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that The_Masque-_An_Erotic_Renaissance meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The_Masque-_An_Erotic_Renaissance. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. TParis00ap (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sonoran Mamma[edit]

Hey, sorry for all the angry messages and deletion warnings and so on :) It looks like you're using Wikipedia to publish some of your work. That's not really what encyclopaedias are for, which is already-published, notable works. Regards, Skomorokh 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I'm writing about a website and it's history. There are other wiki's here along the same subject. Literotica for one. I'm trying to get the feel of it. Will be adding more in the features section as I get it written. Sonoran Mamma (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, that clarifies things. The entry used to look like a piece of fiction, now the website-as-subject is clearer. A word to the wise though, the article is very likely to be deleted unless it can be shown that it has been written or talked about by reliable sources, e.g. Literotica#References. Regards, Skomorokh 21:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I've added a review that was done on the site. Hope that helps.Sonoran Mamma (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing, I was in process of making and had made some significant changes.Sonoran Mamma (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, nascent websites and other new media have a hard time of it on Wikipedia, seeing as they struggle to attract the sort of old media attention Wikipedia depends upon. If you like, I can restore the article to your userspace (e.g. at User:Sonoran Mamma/The Masque) so that you can work on it in peace and perhaps have it restored to the encyclopaedia if it satisfies the inclusion criteria? Skomorokh 22:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Skomorokh, that would be wonderful. It's almost a shame that a public website in and of itself isn't notable enough. I'll read more on submission guidelines so that I won't run into this again. It's a shame that the edits and modifications weren't considered. I do thank you for all the help and advice you've given me today. Sonoran Mamma (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, the bad press Wikipedia gets for mistakes in articles mean a lot of editors won't have a great deal of patience for new articles that aren't perfectly formatted and referenced, which makes this a quite difficult environment for newcomers to get acquainted with. I've restored the article for you here, so best of luck with it (some useful tips here); when you're happy with it just hit the "move" tab at the top of the page and type in your preferred title (e.g. The Masque (website)) but be aware that unless it's changed substantially, editors are likely to delete it again. Sorry for the barriers, and I'm glad to help in any way, and even more glad that you are persisting. Namaste, Skomorokh 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]