Jump to content

User talk:Cai.lill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome![edit]

Hello, Cai.lill! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 04:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Cai.lill, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Additional Resources
  • You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Art Beyond Sight[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 Art Beyond Sight, 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. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion[edit]

Hi, I received a notice that your article was deleted. Looking at the now deleted page, there are two things that stand out:

  • The first is that the page is completely unsourced. In order to show where this organization is notable you will have to show where they have received coverage in independent and reliable sources. All article topics must have this, no matter how noble or deserving the topic may seem. News sources like this are good, however academic sources would be even better, as long as they're independent (ie, not written by the organization or people affiliated/partnered with them) and in a reliable source. A quick look in JSTOR brings up some reviews of the organization's book, so I'm not particularly concerned about notability - however all major claims must be backed up with a reliable source and they do need to be in-line citations.
  • The second is that the article had a pretty promotional tone, which was one of the main things that got the page deleted. When writing pages you should avoid words like "championing", as these are seen as promotional buzzwords aimed at making the organization look better. While it likely wasn't your intent to promote the organization, you have to be extremely careful to make sure that the article is as neutral as possible.

It looks like the page was deleted by Jimfbleak, however he may be willing to restore the article to your userspace if you request this and promise to work on the above issues. If you have any questions, leave me a note on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shalor (Wiki Ed), thanks for ping. Cai.lill, I probably won't be able to deal with this until the morning, but I'll have a look then to see what can be done. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Reply[edit]

Hi, just to expand on the useful advice Shalor (Wiki Ed) gave you. I deleted your article because

  • it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Your only source was the organisation itself, clearly not an independent third party source. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
  • In the absence of proper sources, you gave no evidence that the organisation is notable as defined above. It would help to show notability if you actually told us about the organisation beyond what it claims to do. To help show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, funding or expenditure. It doesn't even appear to have a physical office and there is not even an explicit statement of what country it operates in, although it's clearly the US
  • it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: champions better experiences... engagement can be achieved through making guide-led tours more dynamic... pioneered... These studies provided valuable insight and data into how museums could improve.
  • It's prescriptive, not descriptive, eg Museums must balance... impaired visitors should be asked ... should be equipped with the proper training... see WP:How to
  • There are far to few links to other articles. What's a docent?
  • Your only external link should be to the organisation's main website
  • Parts of your text were almost verbatim from the organisations website, and may be copyright violations. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. The copied site was marked © Art Beyond Sight, 2014 . We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial but there is no indication that the copied site allows free use. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
  • If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also, please read your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above. We often restore deleted text on request, but your article was so far from what we require, with very little factual content, that you would probably be better to start from scratch. However, I'm prepared to sandbox your deleted text if you think it has any value to you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Jimfbleak - I do want the student to respond, but I don't think that the student has any conflict of interest here. I think that this is more of a case of her coming from a student background, meaning that she's used to writing academic and persuasive essays where she tone isn't as much of a concern as it is here. As a thought, would you be OK with me going through her draft and pulling content from it to make a bare bones skeleton for her to work from? I think you're right in that starting from scratch may be a good idea and if I give her a general framework to work with it could help give her a better idea of what to do. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, thanks for the very detailed summary! You're awesome - but you knew that already. :) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for kind words. I didn't really expect a COI, but since this topic had been chosen, just checking. Your suggestion seems a good way forward, I'll soon recreate her draft here in case you don't already have a copy. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi Jimfbleak and Shalor (Wiki Ed). I didn't mean to keep you guys waiting - I don't have a COI (not affiliated with this organization in any way) and thanks for keeping the draft of my article. I'll definitely need it to rewrite this article as it is for a project for my class. Thanks for your helpful feedback and I will revisit my article with everything you said in mind. Cai.lill (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Evaluation[edit]

Article: Welsh Corgi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Corgi For my article, I chose the article on Welsh Corgis. While reading through the article, I found everything to be relevant to the topic, but I felt like the two breeds (Pembroke and Cardigan) were different enough where they warranted different articles. If looking for information on either the Pembroke or the Cardigan, the reader has to sort through a lot of information about the other breed. Despite that, the article remains neutral and doesn't shed and favorable or unfavorable light upon the dogs. The links work and each one leads to a reputable source. In the “talk” section of the article, readers discussed the validity of the idea that Corgis were descended from the Swedish Vallhund. Readers discuss which one is descended from which, and it was concluded that there was very little scientific research regarding the matter. The health section of the article did not mention some of the more popular modern genetic diseases in the breed, such as Degenerative Myelopathy, and the talk section of the article discussed as such. Despite this, the article was neutral and very much in line with what we discussed in class.

A page you started (Eggie (brand)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Eggie (brand), Cai.lill!

Wikipedia editor Rangasyd just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for establishing this page. I have reviewed your article and made a number of changes. May I suggest that you minimise the use of bare URLs and that you add categories to your articles, include tags on the talk page and ensure that the spacing of the article name is correct. Good luck with your future edits.

To reply, leave a comment on Rangasyd's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Rangasyd (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cai.lill&oldid=812717184"