User talk:WellrootedRT

Welcome!

Hello, WellrootedRT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Wellrooted, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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 this 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! MuffledThud (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wellrooted

A tag has been placed on Wellrooted requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuffledThud (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 99.155.206.57 (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "wellrooted"

I'm afraid that if you are looking to establish "wellrooted" as a new word, I cannot offer any hope that Wikipedia will help. In general, our brief is to report on things that are already established - the criterion is notability, which is not a matter of opinion but needs to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ' See, in particular, our guideline on WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms and the following section WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms.

In any case, as an encyclopedia, we would not have an dictionary-definition article about a word (as opposed to one about the thing denoted by a word). You could try it on our sister project Wiktionary but they too have fairly demanding inclusion criteria such as "Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year." There is always Urban Dictionary - I don't know about their criteria or degree of editorial control.

So far as Wikipedia goes, if your campaign or cause develops to a stage where it has attracted enough independent comment to become notable in our sense, it could be the subject of an article, but this guideline would still apply.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]