User talk:Movingboxes

I read and followed the outline of every other individual listed at the bottom of the Wikipedia article entitled "Motivational Speakers". I have difficulty seeing why these other motivational speakers would not be critiqued under the same reason?

They may be critiqued under the same reason. I noticed that at least a couple of the speakers have their articles tagged for notability concerns as well. Also, some of the people are noted authors or activists (Zig Ziglar or Julia Butterfly Hill) who then became motivational speakers. Ultimately, pointing to other articles that don't fit Wikipedia policy and saying "what about them?" isn't a good way to defend an article. You should defend an article on its own merits according to Wikipedia policy. More information can be found at WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, that makes sense to me. Yes, if an editor were to read all 24 articles posted at the bottom of Motivational Speakers, one would have to say that all of them are highly self promotional.

Are they any specific things that you see that can be revised to address these concerns? Happy to comply.

Are these communications public? Or just between you and I? If public, is there an email or other system in Wiki for communicating questions and answers privately? 68.83.140.16 (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages, including this one, are all public. I'm not aware of any private communiation system at this time. Usually people discuss specific changes to articles on the discussion page for the article in question. This way, all interested editors (which go beyond you and me) can see what is being discussed). Since you're involved with two articles (that I know of) that have WP:N issues, I'm not sure exactly how to answer the question. One thing that would help would be if the articles clearly established the notability of the subject and maintained an neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV. Movingboxes (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Movingboxes,

Thank you for taking the time to write back with helpful information. I took the opportunity to read through some of the logs for other articles that have been flagged, and now I understand things a little better. The items you suggested I follow make sense to me, and I will work on this. I submitted another article on a military unit, which happily didn't get flagged. Also made a few very small additions to some of the text regarding Lupus, and looks like that didn't get flagged either.

Signs of progress!

Thsnks again,

68.83.140.16 (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MotivationalMagic (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Movingboxes,

I've been following your suggestions and recommendations. If there were drastic cuts, would you perhaps be willing to reconsider your vote to delete the article? As you can see, many edits have been made to the tone and other concerns that were addressed. Perhaps a little leeway for new people submitting to Wiki as we learn the ropes?

Thank you for your consideration.

68.83.140.16 (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)