User talk:Bauds of Cullen

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alistair Rennie.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alistair Rennie concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alistair Rennie, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alistair Rennie[edit]

Hello Anna Laura Simoni. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Alistair Rennie".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alistair Rennie}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exova[edit]

Hi - I have noticed that you have added material to the article on Exova that is not independently sourced contrary to WP:SOURCE, contains a series of external links contrary to WP:ELNO and which seems to be advertising products contrary to WP:ADVERT. It is a bit unusual to see so many wiki guidelines breached simultaneously. Please can you explain your thinking? Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm sorry but can you please explain where this entry is breaching guidelines? The existing information which I've now replaced is inaccurate and ill-informed. The information I have provided is factually accurate and is verified by a number of articles linked to in the entry and is also verified by legal documentation on the company's website, here:

http://www.exova.com/investors/results-and-reports/

It is a legal requirement for this documentation to be factually accurate, so it's actually the best independent source you can possibly get. It's not information subjectively created by the company; it's information that UK law requires the company to give to the public with total transparency. Or else the company wouldn't be allowed to exist.

The entry lists services that the company provides in a variety of industry sectors. These are simply facts and I'm not sure how they can be construed as advertising when it is verified by independent summaries as given in a variety of media outlets, such as this one here (see bottom of article):

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/business/business-news/exova-group-acquires-oldham-based-environmental-5131580

I tried including this article in the text I added to the entry but Wikipedia wouldn't allow it because the name was too long, and I've no idea what that means.

I have linked to online services provided by the company under various brands. Such links are offering a fulness of information which, I hope, is useful to web visitors in giving full insight into the company's activities.

As I say, the previous entry was inaccurate and insufficient and therefore misleading. I'd be grateful if you could leave the entry as it is now, in view of the documentation cited above. But please do let me know if there's anything more I can do to ensure it stays there.

Many thanks,

A. L. Simoni

Hi – Thanks for your reply. The problem lies only with the last two paragraphs together with the last sentence of the previous paragraph. I will deal with each of the breaches of guidelines in turn.

WP:SOURCE. The guideline requires that the information be taken from and referenced (with in-line citations) to “reliable, third party, published sources”. A company website could not be construed as third party for the purposes of a Wikipedia article about Exova
WP:ADVERT. The guideline requires that Wikipedia should not be used for “advertising, marketing or public relations”. It seems to me that the statement “Exova operates a number of brands, recognised as leaders in their specialist field…” is both advertising (in respect of the brands mentioned) and marketing (unless you can demonstrate that for each brand an independent authority has officially recognised that brand as the leader in its field)
WP:ELNO. The guideline requires that “lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers” be avoided. In this case these links are to suppliers and are therefore not allowed.

In general it is a good idea to read the guidelines before editing Wikipedia so you do not fall into these pitfalls.

I hope this helps and that we can now clean up the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dormskirk,

Many thanks for your feedback. Let me see if I can edit the text in question so it complies with the guidelines as you require. I'd very much appreciate your feedback on any further edits required after I make this one.

Best wishes,

A. L. Simonoi

Hi - Your drafting is fine. I have tweaked the article to remove the external links (per WP:ELNO) and to include in-line citations (per WP:SOURCE). Hope you like it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dormskirk - Yes, that's great. I think it works very well like that. Many thanks for your help in putting it together. - A. L. Simoni

July 2020[edit]

Hi Anna Laura Simoni! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Your changes are clearly not minor. Please don't use the minor edit tick box if you don't know what is major and what is minor. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devi Sridhar[edit]

Please respond to the comments at: Talk:Devi Sridhar Alssa1 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed at username change request[edit]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]