User talk:Eruditescholar/2014b

Bogobiri House

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

It seems to me that you've been around long enough to know that you shouldn't create an article using non-neutral language. If you don't understand what I mean, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Deb (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input regarding my contributions. However I have a good understanding of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I did remove a lot of promotional statements on the article before it was created and and I was still editing it. I least expected your action within seconds of creating it. It seems you are implying that I should remove more promotional words. I will surely do that if you can restore the article. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I did remove a lot of promotional statements on the article before it was created"? Does this mean you didn't create the article yourself? Deb (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

What I am implying is that I usually edit my articles before creation and continue afterwards. I think it would have been better if you tagged the new artcle stating the reason for deletion rather than deleting instantly. That would have helped me to address pending issues related to the article. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion about the list is relevant. And you should either place an "underconstruction" tag on the article or not create it until it meets the basic criteria. Deb (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ruff 'n' Tumble (clothing)

Hello Eruditescholar,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ruff 'n' Tumble (clothing) for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. —Swpb^talk 14:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I can't restore your old article. If you want to work on the article in a space where it won't immediately be deleted, you can create it in the Wikipedia:Drafts namespace, or in your userspace (e.g. at User:Eruditescholar/Ruff 'n' Tumble (clothing)). Please do not move it into the public space again until you've addressed the tone issues and created a completely neutral article, with zero promotional language. You've been warned about that before. If you persist in adding promotional articles to the main space, you may be blocked from editing. —Swpb^talk 15:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Swpb. From the time you sent me this message. I have been having serious interrupted internet connection on my phone which i was using to edit on Wikipedia. I have only been able to rectify this problem by accessing the internet on my computer. I have only tried to continue editing the article by addressing the issues warranting deletion (promotional content) on my userspace (based on your recommendation). My intention was not to put it into the public domain. Are you telling me to stop editing the article? Please I need clarification. Thanks. Eruditescholar (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. I'm not impressed by your excuses; your editing history makes it clear that you have no intention of behaving properly, so I have no intention of helping you. —Swpb^talk 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi Eruditescholar

Am aware of your current challenges on your recently created articles. However, am not too happy to see your article being deleted. I wish it never happen! Am also aware that you recreated a page (Ruff 'n' Tumble (clothing)) that was recently deleted under WP:CSD#G11 by Deb (talk · contribs) without addressing the issue. I suggest that you make no further submission of the article without addressing the issue and if possible, leave it for someone else to work on it (you may send the draft to me to review), as further recreation of the article may amount to a block by any administrator. In addition, you may consider to read this guideline. It seems you are not familiar with that guideline because I had corrected your indentation more than four times today. Also I observed that you blank the page, Ruff 'n' Tumble (clothing) with an edit summary that you removed it from public domain. I want to let you know that such blanking of page is inappropriate and it may be interpreted as vandalism. If you want a page you created to be removed from public domain or deleted, simply add any of these template: {{db-author}},{{db-g7}},{{db-blanked}} to the top of the article. In case you need any assistant, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, I will be glad to help. Happy editing! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 16:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikicology. I think I will leave the article to you to remove any promotional content. Can you help me with it? Eruditescholar (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! Feel free to send the draft to me, I will be glad to help. I remind you once again to work on your indentation, I just corrected another one again. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ruff 'n' Tumble (clothing)

Hello Eruditescholar, I hope you kept my xmas chicken? I think am satisfy with the current state of the above article now. It only needs an improvement now but certainly not a candidate for deletion again. However, my WP:REFLINK is down. Could you please help to fix Nigeria prison break using your own ref-tool?. Thanks in anticipation! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'll help with the article at my own convenience. Eruditescholar (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bungalow (restaurant)

So far the article states that the restaurant exists and that it serves a variety of food. In what way is it notable? On the other hand, you've included the address, the website, the menu and its review on Trip Advisor. Looks promotional to me. Bazj (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your observation. I'll remove the reviews on tripadvisor and add more informative content Eruditescholar (talk)

Deletion discussion about Bungalow (restaurant)

Hello, Eruditescholar,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Bungalow (restaurant) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bungalow (restaurant) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, LouiseS1979 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your question at AFD regarding the article after editing: The sources are still promotional, geared towards travel directory entries, which are PR-based, rather than being reliable sources. If you have third-party, neutral, non-directory sources, I think you need to upload what you've got in place of those travel guide websites, so at least we know that it is notable. As regards what you added about the award, it is regional rather than national as well, and based on a public straw poll rather than the views of experts - and it didn't win. Again, the source is, again, geared towards promotion of local businesses rather than being a neutral, independent panel - I'd imagine a lot of eateries get nominated for these awards but are otherwise unremarkable/unnotable.

What you might want to do is read WP:CORP and make sure that the criteria apply to this restaurant as a company. The depth of coverage is lacking (because most of the sources are promotional themselves), so that's an area to improve quickly. LouiseS1979 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings, LouiseS1979. I have been offline for a while and only recently came back online. The reliability of the sources used in citing the article is actually more relevant in establishing notability. The article does not seem to be a travel guide compared to other stubs of the same topic. What do you suggest on improving the article? I'll be grateful for your input? Eruditescholar (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Terra Kulture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terra Kulture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Kulture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings, Wikicology, I have been offline for a while and only recently came back online. I was quite surprised regarding your nomination of Terra Kulture for deletion. On what basis? The article is not promotional. It is also not a travel guide. Bungalow (restaurant) and Terra Kulture are two different articles with different levels of media coverage. Eruditescholar (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources are generally promotional, however, or self-published (e.g. a straight interview with the founder which is largely geared towards promotion of the org rather than actually being a neutral, third-party reliable source. You have plenty of experience of these discussions now to understand this, yet you persist in not reading the notability guidelines thoroughly.

I think you need to read back through your talk page, read the relevant guidelines in detail and think about the quality of sources you have for these organisations and businesses before you create any more articles. I can understand it seems WP:BITEY to you, but the problem is that other people simply don't think the sources are pointing towards notability, and therefore it's up to you to do your homework before creating articles that immediately get taken to deletion. Why not try WP:Articles for Creation? People there will help assess an article before it gets put into mainspace, saving you these discussions later on? Create the article as a sub-page of your user space, and then submit it to AFC. It will get you more positive feedback and people will be able to save you time, energy and frustration. LouiseS1979 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Lstanley1979, I wish this editor could follow your advice but it doesn't appears to me that they are ready to learn. I understand that it is seemed very demoralizing to see one's article been deleted but its not enough to get worried. This is an editor I love so much and I feel sad when I see his article been nominated for deletion but I have no choice than to nominate some of his articles for deletion because I so much believe in doing the right thing. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Wikicology. I feel bad because I like to go through the New Pages patrol and help improve topics from non-western areas of concern because of legitimate concerns about systematic bias, but it doesn't mean we can keep everything. If we didn't get to this, someone else would have done. LouiseS1979 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your observation: Although some of the published sources especially from the newspapers might look promotional in nature. On a closer scrutiny, they really aren't. The Foreign media is generally quite different from our local media here in Nigeria. Thanks for your recommendation. Eruditescholar (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I have had a look at the sources - unfortunately, most of them are really just travel guide websites, the sort found in Britain and America and other countries, where they don't prove anything except the place exists. These are not sources which would be enough to support notability here.

A quick google brings a number of good online newspapers up e.g. the Nigerian Guardian, which looks like a reliable source. That might be a place to start looking for genuinely notable Nigerian topics. Before you create any more articles, please take a look at sourcing guidelines - I agree with Wikicology that this might seem frustrating, but it's important that you understand that if other people don't think your subjects are notable, then your articles won't last beyond the point at which they're seen by the people looking over new pages. It's not personal - but Nigerian media appears to work the same way as British or American or Indian media, and we can't keep articles on non-notable restaurants just because they are in a number of travel guides designed to promote local eating-places rather than to discuss them neutrally and independently. LouiseS1979 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Good job trying to improve Lagos-based articles. I also share similar passion for Nigeria but NOT for Lagos. I believe you already know this by now, but just to reiterate it more, always try to look at Nigerian Newspapers before creating your next article. New page patrollers might not be very patient to dig deep. I understand that as a third world country with low internet penetration, it will be difficult to find many independent sources for popular restaurants, bars, hotels, etc but the most popular ones will still be covered however trivial. for example places like Mr Biggs, TFC, Sweet Sensation, Chiken Republic, Eko Hotel, Oriental Hotel, etc should be notable enough to be Wikipedia. Seasons greetings BTW. Darreg (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

Season's Greetings, Darreg! Great to hear from you. Thanks for your recommendation. As Wikipedians, we all have different areas of interest in Wikipedia. As Nigerians we also have different areas of interest in Nigeria-related articles on Wikipedia. I actually have the goal of working on some of the articles you've mentioned. There's nothing wrong in having an interest in Lagos-related articles as long as they are encyclopaedic and comply with wikipedia's standards. Since it is logical for you to write more about what you know, I happen to focus more on Lagos because I live, study and work in Lagos. I do not only have a passion for Lagos alone but other Nigerian cities as well. Eruditescholar (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi Eruditescholar,

Am aware of the claim you made on your user page that you have the Pending Change Reviewer flag, which I know you don't have with certitude. I don't think this is appropriate, you may seemed dishonest to the community. If you think you need the flag and your edit history demonstrate the need for it , feel free to Request for permission. There are less damages one can do with the tool. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Wikicology. Reviewing on Wikipedia entails different tasks and it is wrong to assume or judge my status as a Wikipedian based on a series of events. Eruditescholar (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC

It doesn't appears to me that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Ever since I nominated two of your non-notable, promotional articles for deletion in good faith, you had been acting in bad faith. You had refused to takes to corrections and advices from several experienced editors. Such behavior can't improve the encyclopedia in anyway. Nominating your articles for deletion is not enough for you to be discouraged. My first 3 articles was nominated for deletion in the same day and a thread at WP:ANI at the same time. During the ANI thread 3 other articles was flagged for deletion per copyvio. That almost led to an indef block, thank God I was not eventually blocked. Several editors gave some useful advice, which I followed in good faith. Big thanks to DGG for their guidance. I discovered, there are lots to learn here even for the first few years. Don't take any issue personal with me and let's collaborate together to improve wikipedia. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

The articles that were nominated for deletion had been in the public domain for a while without any issues. It was only recently when trying to create another article that it got deleted instantly along with a couple of others on the grounds of being promotional. I immediately addressed the issues warranting the deletion of the articles in the appropriate manner. I contacted the administrator and based on his directives, improved the deleted stub articles to comply with Wikipedia's standards. The discussions are aimed at a consensus reached with other editors and your stance on the articles cannot be solely conclusive. Until now, I have never had any reason for having any of my articles deleted becauses I have always tried to adhere strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines. After working significantly to improve the articles to make them more encyclopedic, your re-nomination of two other articles for deletion when one discussion was still underway made it look more like you had an issue with me or my editing rather than on improving the article. Although you might have the impression of the contrary, I have always assumed good faith while editing Wikipedia. Initially when I started editing I felt bullied by other experienced editors but as time went on, I learnt a great deal especially regarding using Wikipedia appropriately and in relation to other Wikipedians. No Wikipedian knows everything, including administrators. We are all here to collaborate in the Wikipedia community and contribute for readers in the best possible way. Our works cannot be perfect as Wikipedia is a work in progress. Since we all have different areas of interest and expertise in Wikipedia, I have learnt a great deal and always welcomed advice from other editors in the course of editing since I commenced in 2010. Eruditescholar (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Eruditescholar, I don't have any personal issue with you. You are an editor I love so much. In fact, i felt sad when I nominated those articles for deletion but I hate to be biased. I wish you never created such articles (although some of them might not get deleted at the end of the consensus). If I had not nominated those articles for deletion, other editor will do when you least expected. I only tried to save the embarrassment the articles might cause you in the future. We are still best of friends and don't be discouraged. Continue the good work and follow the recent advice given to you by Darreg and if you need any assistance, feel free to contact them as well, they are highly experienced and am sure they will be glad to help. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology, a charge of bad faith is considered a very serious charge, which is not applicable to someone who is merely making errors; it implies a deliberate intention to ignore our rules. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)