User talk:Kristigaylord

Thank you so much for your feedback.

I have made the changes you noted (again, thank you), but I am a bit confused with regard to notability. I've read the page you referenced, and am wondering about the easiest way to establish notability. What are your suggestions to establish this in my article?

Also, in the References section (where I've reformatted my references), do you know why the onlne newspaper articles are preceeded by numbers, but the other web sources are not? Is this okay?

Thanks again!

Welcome

Hello Kristigaylord, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article Wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Kristigaylord, good luck, and have fun. -- ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.

Your Request for Feedback

Hello, Kristigaylord! I have replied to your request for feedback!

I have posted a reply to your request for feedback for Pharos Systems . You can read it here and reply, either with a question or to simply acknowledge it. Happy Editing!

~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 20:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If I forgot to remove the "New Unreviewed Article" notice or you asked me to publish it to main space and I forgot, feel free to tell me and I'd be happy to do it for you!

Leave me a message

For help with the article
If you have a question
For more feedback

References

How references work
Simple references [edit] These require two parts; a) Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref> b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}"; == References == {{reflist}} (an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections) To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Kristigaylord/reftest and try it out. Named references [edit] Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook"> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/> Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result. Citation templates [edit] You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look; Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation \| last = Smith \| first = John \| title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century \| publication-date = 2001 \| publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]] \| page = 125 \| isbn = 0-521-37169-4 }} </ref> Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result. For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Chzz ► 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I have responded to your request for feedback, here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Chzz at 00:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Pharos Systems International, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Some Guidance Needed

I would like some guidance as to how I may improve the article I recently authored on Pharos Systems International.

With regard to the Conflict of Interest issue, I did, indeed, used to work for the company. I left in 2007. I think Pharos is a really interesting organization with pioneering software, and so I decided to write the article about them. I do not understand why this would be a problem. Please advise me as to why this is considered a conflict of interest.

Today I added what I believe to be another reliable secondary source- an article from Campus Technology Magazine. I hope this article increases the notability issue. Please let me know.

I moved some of the references per your suggestion, so that they are better placed near the information they support.

Next, I do not understand why the article from the newspaper, The Dayton Daily News, fails the "independant" and "significant" criteria. From past reviews, I was under the impression that more newspaper articles were needed to add notability to my article, and I thought this newspaper article would help.

Finally, I have asked for and received several different reviews from editors, and each has offered different advice. I am grateful for the advice, and I have done my best to comply with the rules, but now it seems that a whole new set of rules have been applied to the article. The most recent feedback highlights many more problems than my article has received in the past.

Any advice you can offer to improve my article would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Kristigaylord (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Kristi Gaylord[reply]

It's a conflict of interest because you used to work with them. That's why it is a "COI"; whether it is an issue or not is up to how you approach the article. As long as you keep your tone neutral and don't bias the article (AKA, focus only on the good and not any criticisms, etc.), it should be fine.
The Campus Technology reference seems reliable enough, but it is not significant coverage. That is, the subject of that article is not Pharos; it is about print management in colleges. "Pharos" is only mentioned a couple times in the middle. To qualify as significant coverage, the reference should go in-depth about Pharos, focusing on the company and not just mentioning it a few times.
The Dayton Daily News source seems independent to me, and focuses on the company, but is a little short. This isn't a real problem; you just only get a little information out of it. The source seems fine and usable to me.
For improving the article and notability, here is what I suggest:

Add more sources; there are none for the software products section. While I realize this may be hard, it is mentioned a little in the Campus Technology article. Just because it is not significant in its coverage does not mean it is not usable. It is just less helpful in establishing notability.
About notability: basically, either find a few more sources that do cover the company in-depth, or state in the article why the company is important enough to have a Wikipedia article. (No, don't write "Pharos deserves a Wikipedia article because...", but add information about any awards they have won or recognition they have received, etc.)
Here are some possible sources: Google News Archives. This seems promising, as does this, although I they may be press releases (which aren't considered independent).

I hope that this clarified some details for you. —fetch ·comms 02:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at this article per your request. It seems properly tagged regarding issues which should be improved. First the conflict of interest seems least relevant. In fact I am removing that one because there is no evidence that your association with the subject has manifest in the article prose. Actually you did a good job in that regard, In my opinion. The notability tag is concerning because there really is no indication of notability beyond that the company is. To warrant an article the subject must rise above mere success in their chosen field. For example if they were the largest, or the fastest growing, award wining, or the likes. And of course any such fact requires verifiability in significant coverage from reliable sources. This addresses the third tag currently in place. From the perspective of a contributor at articles for creation, if this were a submission it would not be created for these very reasons. Therefor the necessity to correct these deficiencies is more paramount than merely to improve its rating. I hope this helped a bit and offer any follow-up you may require. Cheers. My76 Strat 03:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I added the tag to write the article using a more encyclopedic tone. This will be an important consideration for you as you improve the article. In short, you need to tell the story about the company, why they are important, and what important things others are saying about them. When the emphasis appears more about what the company does, and how they do it, the greater outcome is self promoting opposed to encyclopedic. My76 Strat 03:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Assistance Required

Thank you for the additional feedback.

However, I am still experiencing confusion over conflicting recommendations I have received from editors. In August, I had included information about awards Pharos had won, and I was told that this was considered puffery, and should be removed. Now, in the most recent advice, I read that awards should be included to give the article a more encyclopedic tone.

If I include the information about awards won, in addition to others, will this help the article's notability issues and give it a more encyclopedic tone, or will the additions once again be considered puffery?

Also, please give me some advice as to how to make this article sound less like an advertisement. I do not understand why it sounds like one.

Thanks for your help.

Kristigaylord (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including awards maybe perfectly acceptable as long as they are presented in an encyclopedic fashion. For example, we would mention in an actor's article that they have won an Academy Award. Don't mention "small" awards or recognition (local business of the month or whatnot), but do mention anything major, and make sure that there is a source accompanying that mention. Also, rather than listing out awards, it might be better to make a separate section or subsection and mention the awards in prose/paragraphs. Make sure, then, just to state the facts: "In [year], Pharos was award the [award] by [awarding group]"; don't use any puffery in the wording (don't say "Pharos is a highly recognized company, having distinguished itself by receiving [awards]", etc.).

Regarding the tone and advertisement issues, here are my suggestions: in the intro, don't say "provides... services... worldwide", but say "Pharos Systems International, Inc. is a privately-held consulting company that also produces print management software". Also, don't include the "Pharos’ stated goal is to help organizations reduce their printing and copying volume and costs, improve printing security, and fulfill sustainability initiatives", as a mission statement is usually never encyclopedic in style (they are almost always meant to promote the company and make it sound good). "The company has a worldwide network of technology partners and resellers" can be changed to "The company works with many other technology corporations, including...", which is a bit more neutral in the wording. "Both are available with Secure Release Here, a pull printing application designed to reduce paper waste while providing print job security and printing flexibility. The Policy Print messaging application in Blueprint also helps end-users make economically and environmentally friendly printing choices" doesn't sound very good in my opinion; perhaps cut the "while providing print job security and printing flexibility" bit as well as the whole second sentence. It is a matter of opinion whether the Policy Print program helps me make good printing choices; an encyclopedic tone means that only verifiable facts should be included. In the next section, maybe just remove "to its portfolio". Overall, the tone is not as bad as many other articles on Wikipedia, but there are some improvements that could be made, as I pointed out above. —fetch ·comms 21:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Made - Can Notes at Top of Page Be Removed?

Thanks very much for your very helpful feedback. I have made changes per your suggestions, which I believe will help with the issues in the notes at the top of my page.

Can those messages be removed now?

Thanks again, Kristigaylord (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

I notice that you have only edited this one article (and links), so yours is, currently, a single-purpose account.

Do you intend to improve any other Wikpedia articles? Chzz ► 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely plan on creating more articles and improving others soon. Although a challenge, I really enjoyed my first experience with writing an article. Kristigaylord (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK; currently, I'd say that Pharos Systems International is promotional, e.g. provide user authentication, pull-printing, and print/copy accounting (no reference), and needs better references;

However, if you have a conflict of interest, I suggest you read WP:BESTCOI.

I'll leave the {{helpme}} to get more onions... 00:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't give any onions; try a grocery store. Chzz, sign your posts. Aaargh 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, As I mentioned last week, I do not have a COI. I used to work for the company, and I left in 2007. I wrote this article because I think Pharos is notable company with pioneering software.

Regarding the "promotional" issue, I made my edits based on another editor's very helpful and specific feedback. I removed sentences he suggested, changed the wording of sentences as he suggested, and I thought I did a good job of making the article non-promotional. Please advise me as to what I can do further. Kristigaylord (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]