Jump to content

User talk:Seraphimblade: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 270: Line 270:


[[User:MarvelJason|MarvelJason]] ([[User talk:MarvelJason|talk]]) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)MarvelJason[[User:MarvelJason|MarvelJason]] ([[User talk:MarvelJason|talk]]) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
[[User:MarvelJason|MarvelJason]] ([[User talk:MarvelJason|talk]]) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)MarvelJason[[User:MarvelJason|MarvelJason]] ([[User talk:MarvelJason|talk]]) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

One more note, ironcially "enrobed in", "Egg-free and shelf-stable" were my attempt to get as technical as I could and to avoid flowerly language, to provide raw data about what Cookie Dough Bites TECHNICALLY are. Those are technical terms, which I guess could be considered promotional, but typically are not. "Chocolate covered" is how a product is marketed, "enrobed" is the technical term for that. WHich is why I chose that language.

So, I can see why you might understandably interpret that as promotional, but I was trying to approach this as "someone has no idea what this is, how do I technically describe it to them, what's the important data points". Not, "lets tell the world how great these are". And I think it's important to establish, technically, what a product actually is. Unless the desire is to be less-specific. Because I can certainly do that.

[[User:MarvelJason|MarvelJason]] ([[User talk:MarvelJason|talk]]) 19:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)MarvelJason[[User:MarvelJason|MarvelJason]] ([[User talk:MarvelJason|talk]]) 19:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:01, 10 June 2020

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Please do be nice.

Please read before posting

  • Post all new sections under a new header at the bottom of this page, not at random. If you make it clear you ignored these instructions by placing it elsewhere, I am likely to ignore your request in turn.


  • If you leave me a message here, I will respond to it here, as fragmented discussions are confusing. I may or may not leave you a notice that I've responded on your talk page. If you specifically request that I do (or do not) give you such a notice when I respond, I'll honor that request. If I contact you on your talk page, I will watchlist it so that I can respond there. If you'd like to leave me a notice when you respond (a ping will also suffice), it would be appreciated, and you'll probably receive a faster followup.
  • If you are an admin here to ask me about someone I blocked for vandalism or spamming/advertising, they've agreed to stop it, and you believe they intend to edit productively, go ahead and unblock them. If you still want my opinion please feel free to ask, but there's no obligation. For more complex cases I would appreciate a heads-up, but please go ahead with your best judgment if I don't seem to be online. I would appreciate it if you'd let me know after you do.
  • If you are here to discuss edits made to an article, please use the article talk page, not this talk page, to discuss them. If I made the edit and the question is specifically directed at me, you are welcome to ping me.
  • If you email me a question or request, and do not indicate why the matter is sensitive and must be handled privately (and such is not immediately obvious), I may ignore it or respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Talk pages are open to other editors to read, and so are the preferred method of communication for matters involving Wikipedia. If the matter you are speaking to me about is Wikipedia-related and would not violate anyone's privacy by being posted publicly, please use my talk page instead of email. This does not, of course, apply to editors who are blocked from editing, though I still may respond on your talk page rather than by return email. Also, if you are contacting me for a matter related to the Arbitration Committee, please specifically indicate this in your email. All correspondence of this nature will be treated as confidential, though I am likely to forward it to the Committee as a whole, or any appropriate subcommittee, for consideration.
  • If you are here to ask a question regarding deletion of any kind, please read this before asking, and ask only if you need further clarification or still disagree after reading. If you ask a question answered there, I'll just refer you to it anyway.
  • While I will generally leave any personal attacks or uncivil comments you may make about me here, that does not mean that I find them acceptable, nor that I will not seek action against attacks that are severe or persistent.
  • I reserve the right to remove, revert, or immediately archive any material on this page, but will do so only in extreme circumstances, generally that of personal attacks or outing attempts against others. I will only revision delete material on this page in accordance with the revision deletion policy, and will clearly denote the reason why.


Speedy Deletion of my 2 new pages

I published two new articles named Neelkanth Patang - The Revolving Restaurant and Gopal Namkeen. I just want the data of both articles, so I can improve that and may recreate those pages after suggested improvements. Please help me to do so, I created those pages after spending hours on internet.बृहस्पति (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

बृहस्पति, if you intend to do a recreation, I will not assist you in doing so. The articles were promotional and would need a fundamental rewrite, not a bit of tweaking. However, you also need to remember that not all subjects meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. If you spent hours looking for sources and those are the best you could find, chances are very good that these subjects do not have the necessary source material for notability, meaning we should not have articles about them at all. Determining if a subject is appropriate for an article and, if so, creating that article, is a very difficult thing to do, and I suggest that new editors spend a fair bit of time editing existing articles first to gain experience with Wikipedia. After that, once you initially try new articles, do so as a draft and request articles for creation review rather than going for it directly in mainspace. It seems you may have gotten a bit ahead of yourself. That's okay, but give it a bit of time before you jump directly into the deep end. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only need the data which I gathered after hard working, Searching through books, websites and cited on the pages. I don't asked for your assistance. These articles were deleted too fast, so I can't get enough time to backup source codes. I read Wikipedia's definition of notability. I want to recreate both the articles(If it not violate wikipedia's guideline) and I promise you I am not going to publish it on mainspace directly. I will first request experienced wikipedia editors of my City/State/Country (I think they can understand the topics better than others.) to review it. If they will find the articles in the limiting boundaries of wikipedia guideline then only I go ahead.बृहस्पति (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you intend to recreate them like that rather than going through AfC, the answer remains "no". "Understanding" of the material is irrelevant; the whole point of using published reliable sources is so that even someone who doesn't understand the material can verify that it is accurate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are stretching the conversation?, I already mentioned that I will go through review process, more precisely called AfC. I need the Source Codes of both Articles.बृहस्पति (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said previously you would request experienced wikipedia editors of my City/State/Country (I think they can understand the topics better than others.) to review it. That's not how this works. You hit the submit for review button and you get whatever reviewer you get. You do not pick which one. Are we clear there? Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thank you for your guidance, Am I get my lost data or not????बृहस्पति (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please undelete and draftify Neelkanth Patang - The Revolving Restaurant. The topic is notable as an architecturally important building and considered as landmark building of Ahmedabad. The editor is new so he might have made mistakes in writing. The previous writing might be promotional and poor. I will be keeping any eye on it and will remove if anything promotional is found.
See following references to solve notability issue for Patang Hotel:
Regards,-Nizil (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference which I already mentioned in Neelkanth Patang - The Revolving Restaurant.
Requesting to undelete and draftify article.बृहस्पति (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you've already received the answer to that request. It will not change if you keep repeating it. You are welcome to try again if you have found sufficient reference material, though the couple of blurbs you've stated here won't be that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But what is your problem to undelete and draftify Neelkanth Patang - The Revolving Restaurant??? I am promising to go through AfC. You deleted the article citing notability and promotional. I think the article is as per guideline. If you don't think so, please cite any promotional sentence from that deleted Neelkanth Patang - The Revolving Restaurant here.बृहस्पति (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is profile spam. It's there to push something about it onto Wikipedia, not to actually determine if available sources actually support doing so. Additionally, language like "...Diners can enjoy the views..." is promotional and unacceptable. For the last time, the answer is an absolutely firm no. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello. I request text of page Group-IB. Can add in draft namespace? Erdmiln (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erdmiln, as this article was promotional, please first clarify whether you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If this is so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done [2]. waiting for the following instructions. Erdmiln (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. You will need to review the policy on conflict of interest. Specifically, if you are being paid to edit an article, you should not create or edit it directly in mainspace. For creation, it will need to be created as a draft and submitted to articles for creation for review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you for help. Can I ask you about wiki-text of old page? After I can change it for make more neutral. Draft name should be Draft:Group-IB? Erdmiln (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already answered that. I do not restore advertisements. You may try again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  • CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
  • Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
  • QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

Unblock request

I am an inexperienced administrator who has never done any blocking or unblocking. I have been looking at the unblock request of Olickal Peter Thomas. Could you please explain your thinking on this user and your reasons for blocking him? He seems to have created a single article Uwe Gustafsson in 2016 and done very little since. Or am I missing something? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cwmhiraeth, no troubles, we've all been there once after all. I did put an expanded rationale below the block reason which I think addresses your question: To be specific, you have repeatedly uploaded images which are copyright violations, created inappropriately promotional articles, and otherwise been editing inappropriately. It appears that you are either unable or unwilling to learn how to follow the policies which apply to editing Wikipedia. Basically, this editor is repeatedly and routinely creating inappropriate pages that other editors then have to clean up and acting as a time sink, and seems unwilling or unable to learn how to create policy-compliant ones. I hope that helps to clear it up? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I had been dealing with him I would have asked him about his CoI in connection with the organisation "Coastal Voluntary Network" where a Peter Thomas was listed in the infobox as the general secretary. The uploaded image of the logo was the only upload of a file since 2016, so the indefinite block seems a bit harsh to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone has had years to learn better and has not indicates to me more, not less, of an issue. If you're convinced they'll edit productively, you're welcome to unblock them, but I sure don't see anything that tells me so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion Luciano Micallef

Hi.This is Angie Balzan. We had a long discussion a few weeks ago about the Inspirasia foundation page which I found most helpful. I have rewritten an article Luciano Micallef which has just beeg tagged for speedy deletion. I would really like to be told where I went wrong on this article as I really tried to substantiate every claim with verifiable sources. I have also not used any inflated language and have really kept to precise detail ( to my knowledge). It would be really helpful if you could find the time. Thank you. Angie Balzan (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Balzan, it looks like the request for speedy deletion was declined. I would have declined it as well had I reviewed it; it may go a bit into excessive detail on specific projects they've done but I certainly don't see it crossing the line into blatant promotion. So, sometimes people make an error; that's why there are multiple steps to the review process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see, though, that it was edited in between the placement of the speedy tag and the decline. At the time of tagging, I see it contained stuff like: Micallef is known for his vibrant portrayals of leading... (leave out stuff like "vibrant" and "leading"), and ...in honour of Malta's leading philantropists... ("leading" again, "Maltese philanthropists" will suffice.) Generally, an article should not have "leading" in it; that's a puff term. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L'OR

Please maintain a neutral stance. In a market where one brand nearly achieved a monopolistic position, it appears legitimate to list and present (in a non corporate way) an alternative brand to the general public. By deleting my page you just discourage any competition for customers in Europe, that are unable to find clear information about this brand, apart that from its official company's website. Other users shall improve the page if not deleted. Goodwillgames (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwillgames, Wikipedia is not a directory of products. If you would like to do that, please consider a corporate website or social media. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatoon

And, less than two weeks after you removed the commented-out note that explains why we're not calling the Saskatoon freezing deaths 'murder', people have resumed editing the article to say that they were murder.

I warned you that this would happen.

I am restoring the commented-out warning. Please do not remove it again. DS (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a substantial amount of disagreement over what the article should say, the discussion for that goes on the talk page, not in a "do not make this edit" warning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The people who want to change this article to something that is emotionally satisfying but factually incorrect DO NOT READ TALK PAGES. Versions of this statement have been inserted into the article on a daily basis over the past week. DS (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced request regarding Nishi Bhardwaj

user:seraphimblade I created a page Nishi Bhardwaj. However, it was deleted due to certain mentioned reasons. I would request you to retrieve my article and I would like to improve the article and make it more informative and be eligible to the Wikipedia guidelines. I will be thankful. Richardmat (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)user:richardmat[reply]

Richardmat, as the article was promotional, please first clarify whether you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If that is so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade I am not paid for creating and contributing to Wikipedia. I am beauty pageant enthusiast and I created this article of Nishi Bhardwaj because she has been the candidate of major pageants. We have Wikipedia articles of almost all the beauty queens who have represented India at Miss Earth and been the major national pageant winner. Unfortunately, the article I created seemed to be promotional while the intention was only to add more and more information with the credible sources.Richardmat (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)user:richardmat[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. In terms of this article, it was full of promotional, puffy material, for example (but by no means an exhaustive list): was sent to represent India, walked the ramp ("competed in" would serve fine), She walked as a Show Stopper (pure puff), She was in Top 8 (not confirmed by cited source and it doesn't appear to be reliable; if there is a reliable reference as to where she finished, "finished sixth" rather than "finished in the Top 8" would be fine), and so on from there. Articles must be written in a strictly neutral tone without any "talking up" or puff terminology, and must stick strictly to facts verified by reliable sources. I do not undelete advertisements, but you can try again, sticking to neutral language and referenced facts, as it does appear she may indeed be notable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade Thank you for your suggestions. I will abide by it and it also helped me understand things better. Is it possible to get the draft format back that I can edit as I directly created them on the Wikipedia page.Richardmat (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(You don't need to ping someone when you're posting on their talk page; one is notified automatically about those posts.) That being said, it isn't the worst I've seen, and I don't find any indications of copyright problems. So if you're willing to agree to have it reviewed by articles for creation rather than returning it to mainspace yourself, I'd be willing to restore it to draft. Would that work? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Talbot-Kelly

Hi Seraphimblade, Can you tell me was there something specific that you found overly 'promotional' about the entry? I had only used verifiable details with good source references (The Irish Times, New York Times, New Yorker, Screen Ireland, National Film Board of Canada) and thought it was biographical. Any pointers here would be most helpful. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoJimboJames (talk • contribs) 10:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YoJimboJames, since the article was promotional, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If this is so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade

I haven't been paid or am under any obligation to edit Matthew Talbot-Kelly's page. However I did work with him over a decade ago and I believe I may have created the original entry. But in the intervening years Matthew Talbot-Kelly has been producing artwork recognized and supported by the Canadian Council for the Arts and has produced many artworks that are certainly of note. I have re-written my recent entry and have made it more biographical and encyclopedic and only with reliable and trustworthy citations. He is part of a family lineage of artists from his father, grandfather and great grandfather (his grandfather and great grandfather have wikipedia entries). This along with the work he has produced, I believe warrants his inclusion. One of his films was in competition at the Venice Film Festival. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YoJimboJames/Matthew_Talbot-Kelly

— Preceding unsigned comment added by YoJimboJames (talk • contribs) 01:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing a bunch of puff there. It is an assemblage of moods, objects, and music, portraying an old man’s memories. ("teaser" stuff, what's it actually about?), Surreal imagery with juxtapositions of real everyday objects unfold as we see (articles must not use second-person such as "we", and what reliable source describes the movie that way?), It also featured in the 35th ("featured in" is puff, "was shown at" will suffice.}}. The rest carries on in that same inappropriate, informal, "get to know ya" tone. Encyclopedia articles should be written in a formal tone; rather dry and sticking just to facts from reliable sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade,

Thanks for your advice and I saw what you meant by 'puff'. I've removed all that language just sticking to the facts with reliable sources. Can you please read over again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoJimboJames (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is at first glance better, but I don't have time to review it in depth right now. There is a button in the template at the top to submit the article for articles for creation review. Use that and an experienced reviewer will check to see if it is mainspace ready. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Material Retrieval

Hi,

You deleted an article "Ondo State Music Awards" few months ago and I'll like you to help provide the deleted material for improvement.

Thank you Thisissegun (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thisissegun, since the article was promotional, please first clarify if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia, including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment or internship. If so, you will need to make the required disclosures before we proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have never been paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia neither is it a duty of employment or internship.

I admit to have made lots of errors on the article as it was first and I haven't really read much about how things work on Wikipedia when the article was done.

However, I'm so ready to make necessary corrections as I've read and understood a lot.

Once again, I want to clearly state that I don't edit on Wikipedia to get benefits of any kind Thisissegun (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say as I believe that. If you're not being paid to edit, you're sure trying awfully hard to make it look like you are. You've already had to have one article title protected since you kept creating advertisements at it. I do not undelete advertisements, so I will not undelete that one. You can try again, but I very strongly advise you read through the policy on neutrality. In the particular case of Ondo State Music Awards: features performances by prominent artists ("features" and "prominent" are puff terms), Our findings shows that The OSMAs is the only indigenous music award in Nigeria. (who is "our"?), You can simply relate... (articles should never use the second person ("you" or "we") or otherwise address the reader), rewards excellence in our fast rising artiste across the country ("artist" or "musician", not "artiste", who is "our" again?, "rewards excellence" is puff.) Those are just the issues I found in reading the very first paragraph, and they persist throughout. Wikipedia articles must be written strictly in a neutral tone without any talking up, puffery, or marketese, sticking only to facts verified by reliable sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deletion of Blue Label Labs

Hi Seraphimblade,

You removed a page I recently published for Blue Label Labs so I’m hoping we can work something out between us without having to involve anyone else. My grounds for the dispute are as follows:

  • You accused me of "disruptive editing" which isn't true and could be seen from the edit history of the document - I made a couple of additional changes to the language and fixed a few things I failed to notice in the original draft. Changing text to more concise language that coincides with Wikipedia's guidelines as well as fixing small grammar and punctuation areas is, based on my understanding, in no way a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. My understanding is that Wikipedia pages should be as well-written as possible which explains my edits.
  • The article was previously deleted for lacking notability then reworked according to the feedback received from the first admin who deleted the page. After addressing this feedback, there were no glaring errors with respect to Wikipedia's guidelines with the exception of the first-party sources cited. These were present in the first draft that was briefly published on the site – from my perspective, it was heavily implied that a revision simply required more content that reflected notability. The section I added pertaining to the Webby Award was meant to address this feedback.
  • You accused me of "vandalizing" Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, it appears that I've done nothing of the sort. I simply created then re-created a page for a noteworthy company, citing verifiable information from reliable sources found on the web. Because of the "EAT principle" (i.e Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness) used by SEO professionals to rate web pages (a former profession of mine), I chose to use information issued by the company itself, despite having gathered the same information from third-party sources. I will admit that upon further review, I now understand this not preferred, per the Wikipedia guidelines. I feel you could have easily asked if I had other third-party sources to backup content.
  • Verbatim, you wrote, "You may be a copywriter, but "copy" is not permitted on Wikipedia. Articles are to be encyclopedia articles, written in a neutral tone and based upon factual details from reliable and independent references." This, I feel is a personal attack and highly upsetting coming from someone who appears to be well-respected in the Wikipedia community. The output from anyone who is considered a copywriter is (or can be) considered "copy." Really, it’s simply a generalization for any written content, including content on Wikipedia, no matter how the creator identifies themself. So when I post something to my personal Facebook, it's considered copy. When I text my mom, this is considered copy. When I leave a hand-written note for a colleague, this is also considered copy. Just because I am a copywriter doesn't mean that I should be treated unequally. Calling my content "copy" in a derogatory manner when it really boils down to a matter of semantics then whimsically dismissing it as some form of lesser content is nonsensical.

There are a lot of small businesses in the world – it would benefit web users the world over if, no matter how seemingly insignificant, these entities were allowed pages that met Wikipedia guidelines. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to strive to host accurate, publicly-available information for any given subject under the sun?

I respectfully ask that the article is put back on the site at which point, I will change the citations to independent sources, per the Wikipedia guidelines. If necessary, I’ll rework or omit the section on the Webby Award.

Thanks in advance for your attention to this matter. Legendofthebend (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legendofthebend, first off, my apologies for messing up the warning. That was meant to be for advertising, not vandalism. So that bit's my fault, and no, it's not specifically considered vandalism. However, using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is not allowed. To answer your main question, no, Wikipedia is not for having an article on "any given subject under the sun"; nor to "get the word out" about someone's company. Articles must demonstrate notability; that is, the article's subject must be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. If that type and quantity of material does not exist, an article on that subject shouldn't exist either. Additionally, sourcing wasn't the main issue (though heavy use of self-published sources often indicates profile spam). Rather, Wikipedia articles are required to be written in a strictly neutral tone, and in practice, this is enforced especially strictly with regards to promotional language about people and organizations. Some examples: As a full-service agency... (marketese, what's that actually mean?), Blue Label Labs has been recognized by many notable publications and received a variety of accolades... (I find the word "accolades" to be an excellent indication I'm reading a spamvertisement, and the "many notable publications" bit is superfluous fluff), a Webby Award, the leading international award honoring excellence on the Internet (the talking up of the award is more puff, and we certainly cannot source things like that to people who give the awards, of course they'll talk up their own stuff!), reference 4 is an Amazon sales link which is not at all appropriate and the book doesn't need mention in the article unless third-party sources confirm it's particularly significant, and then a section of largely non-notable awards and mentions. I don't restore advertisements, but you can try again at Draft:Blue Label Labs. If articles for creation approves the article, I'll then be happy to unprotect the title to move to mainspace, but since now two inappropriate articles have been directly created there, it will need to go via AfC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, right on. Thanks for getting back with me promptly and providing clarification!

Based on your feedback, it looks like I'll need to rethink some of this and certainly remove or the content and citations that are in violation before attempting to publish another draft. There are several pages I'd like to create (in time) so the amount of detail you've provided pertaining to your thought process is very helpful.

Just one more question - is there anything specific I should do before hitting publish once I feel it's ready? Legendofthebend (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once you believe the draft is ready for mainspace, you can add {{AfC submission}} to the draft, and that will put it into the queue for AfC review. You can work on the draft as long as you like before doing that, so only do that once you feel it's ready. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cookie Dough Bites (candy) page

Hi,

I'd request that this page not be deleted because I am endeavoring to build it out to be a fully encyclopedic entry because it is one of the most significant new-product/brand launches in the category for the decade of the 1990's - and I think it should be listed (similar to how Nerds were arguably the biggest candy launch of the 1980's). My apologies as I'm just still finding my way around the various ins-and-outs of Wikipedia guidelines. I read your personal FAQ, regarding page deletions, but could not find how to comment to you via the page itself (maybe because it was deleted) so I'm leaving this on your talk page.

I'm a confectionery historian, and for the post-war 20th century, I might be a preeminent authority of candy brand history. I have published over 600 articles (and over 6,000 images from my archives on CollectingCandy.com) I have consulted with the Smithsonian, the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, have been featured in the New York Times discussing brand history and even hosted my own food history television show on Cooking Channel. I've been featured on Food Network a few times, when the history of candy or cereal comes up. So, I hope that lends me some credibility and some leeway when I state that my interest is in making sure the history of these brands is documented and documented well and accurately. My creation of this page is not meant to be a promotion, but rather an accurate and robust recording of its importance as a late 20th century confectionery brand.

I've been reading and re-reading the guidelines and have a lot of additional information to add to this entry and rewrites to do on the existing information I've posted thus far. I want to work within the Wiki guidelines to create a solid Wiki entry for this brand. Hopefully I can do so as I am working to do it the right way. I am on the learning curve, but hopefully on my way up to getting it right.

If I need to start over, is there a way for me to get what I wrote for the Wiki that was deleted? I didn't realize that a deletion would wipe it out, so from here on I'll work to draft things locally before uploading.


Jason Liebig New York City — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvelJason (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarvelJason, unfortunately, one's own personal expertise is not a reference on Wikipedia. References must be to reliable and independent published sources, and there must be a substantial quantity of reference material available about an article subject. If that is not available, Wikipedia (by the way, not "Wiki") should not have an article about that subject. In this instance, the first bit of text contained promotional language ("enrobed in", "Egg-free and shelf-stable"), and after that was just a product listing, which is not appropriate for an article. The only references cited were what appear to be blogs, which are not generally considered reliable. Is there better source material available about this product than that? So far as beginning an article, it is generally better to either do so in your userspace sandbox (you'll see a link to it near the top), or as a draft, where it is not necessary to immediately demonstrate notability (although even in draft form, promotion won't be allowed). There's really not much usable in the text that was entered; like I said, just a brief, rather promotional blurb and then a list of products, and the references used were poor ones, so I don't think the deleted text would be too helpful to a new article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade,

Thank you for the response (hopefully I'm doing this correctly - I really am trying to navigate the communication tools of Wiki as best I can).

First question, can you recover what I already published and was deleted? Just so I can put it back on my workpage or draft page (or userspace sandbox, whatever that is - maybe these are all names for the same thing?) I'd love to get that back.

Before I started on this, I studied many of the existing candy Wikipedia pages and endeavored to craft the format of this new page, using those as a guideline. Being the authority and arbiter of the category that I am, I am keenly aware that one of the big things people are always looking for on Wiki are a list of historical flavors/variety a brand has had, and it's great to see those included in the various established Wiki entries I'd studied. So, for that I was looking at established precedent for brand-related Wikis.

As far as source material, yes, there are some news articles and such that I plan to add, but much of this is, like much of my foundational work, based on primary research. Some of which I've published on CollectingCandy.com but much of which remains unpublished. And I assumed that, with well-established median and journalistic credibility, primary research could be included in an encyclopedic entry. I've been interviewed many times and I always tell people, for much of what I write about it, before I wrote it, it was un-Google-able.

And frankly, in the category of candy history, Wikipedia is littered with seemingly endless amounts of speculative data that I've never been able to corroborate in any way. I often refer to Wiki's candy history as the least-reliable historical references you can find. But I aim to create an entry that is just the opposite.

So, I wouldn't be publishing anything I could not provide physical, documentable corroboration for, and I do intend to site more things, but this category is, well, the history of it is so largely undocumented, but my primary research in it stands a bit alone. I'm not getting my information from Google, I'm getting it from phone interviews with inventors, from decades-old trade papers I have in my physical archives here, and from other similar pieces of incredibly scarce ephemera.

Of course, I'll be happy to also include these materials in the WIki as I write it, but they were all published before the internet existed, and have not been uploaded anywhere.

I'm just trying to provide an accurate historical exploration of this important-to-the-category brand. I'll endeavor to do whatever is asked of me, but I do hope that corrobaratable primary research is not dis-included.

Jason

MarvelJason (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)MarvelJasonMarvelJason (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more note, ironcially "enrobed in", "Egg-free and shelf-stable" were my attempt to get as technical as I could and to avoid flowerly language, to provide raw data about what Cookie Dough Bites TECHNICALLY are. Those are technical terms, which I guess could be considered promotional, but typically are not. "Chocolate covered" is how a product is marketed, "enrobed" is the technical term for that. WHich is why I chose that language.

So, I can see why you might understandably interpret that as promotional, but I was trying to approach this as "someone has no idea what this is, how do I technically describe it to them, what's the important data points". Not, "lets tell the world how great these are". And I think it's important to establish, technically, what a product actually is. Unless the desire is to be less-specific. Because I can certainly do that.

MarvelJason (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)MarvelJasonMarvelJason (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seraphimblade&oldid=961850853"