User:Arakunem/Sandbox

The big issues with the article as it stands now are:


 * Notability There are specific criteria that a Wikipedia article must have in order to qualify for inclusion, the first being Notability. On Wikipedia, notability does not equate to importance, popularity, etc., but instead means the topic has received coverage in multiple, independent, third-party publications. Right now the article makes statements and claims by Mr. Tertzakian, using his own book as a reference for those statements. If that is the only source, then the article fails the Notability standard for Wikipedia. If, however, there are other sources for this topic, such as news articles, magazine articles, peer-reviewed technical publications, and the like, then that will demonstrate the notability required. See the Reliable Source guideline for other kinds of sources that are appropriate.
 * The Tone of the article is not what is expected of an encyclopedia article. It reads more like an essay or a book review of the source book. This is less of a problem than the lack of sources and notability concerns though. If notability can be demonstrated as per the above, then the deletion discussion can likely be closed, and the tone can be worked on afterward. In the absence of verifiable and reliable sourcing though, the page is likely to be deleted.

The rule of thumb for Wikipedia articles is: We don't publish new ideas, research, or thoughts. We publish what other people have already said in independent reliable sources. Thus, Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information. Primary being the "inventor" (for lack of a better word here), and the secondary being the news outlet, scientific journal, etc., that discusses it. We then reference what that secondary source says. I hope this help explain things, and that we are not trying to be overtly dismissive, but rather staying within our own guidelines and policies. Thanks! Arakunem Talk 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi JulioRobiana. It seems you've run up against some of our core policies in that article, which is why your edits keep getting reverted. Please don't get into an edit-war over this, as those almost always lead to revocation of editing ability. Rather, here are some tips as to exactly what the problems are. Please click the links for more detailed information on each: I hope this helps! Arakunem Talk 16:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, please review our Guidelines for editing when you have a potential Conflict Of Interest). In a nutshell, if you have a close connection to a topic (which you certainly appear to in this case), you are strongly discouraged from making direct edits to the article. I realize this seems counter-intuitive, as you would naturally assume to have the most knowledge of the topic. While this is often true, over time we have found that many such editors have a tendency, even unconsciously, to not maintain a Neutral Point of View in their edits. This doesn't mean we don't want the benefits of your knowledge (quote the contrary, we welcome it!), but just that you need to take special steps to ensure it gets added according to our policy. The best way to do this is to make edits to the article's Talk Page (the "discussion" tab that every article has), and describe the nature of the edits you want to make. Discussion then happens, and the agreed-upon text gets added to the article by an uninvolved editor, which keeps everything nice and neutral.
 * A larger problem was that the text entered appears to be a direct copy of this web page. That web page clearly is marked with a copyright notice, and "All rights reserved". For legal reasons we cannot accept copyrighted material, as all material added to Wikipedia is released under various licenses which allow others to re-use the material for any purpose. Obviously we do not have that right with copyrighted material, so such is not allowed. Better to paraphrase the material and write it in your own words. Which leads to:
 * Neutrality. The text in question included language that was non-encyclopedic in tone, but sound more like press releases or campaign blurbs: "Mayor Julio Robaina has a vision for Hialeah", "Mayor Robaina’s community based focus", and so on. It is important that all text in articles is completely neutral in tone and doesn't try to impress an opinion on the reader, either positive or negative. The way to look at this is: one should not be able to tell from the article whether the author loves or hates the subject.
 * Lastly, we need to ensure that the edits you make include information that is Verifiable through Reliable Sources that are unrelated to the topic itself. The rule of thumb for this bit is: We don't write about things we know, we write about things that others have already written about. Wikipedia is a "tertiary source" in that regards.

I hope all this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like clarification on any of this. You can leave a note here, or at my user talk page (the "talk" after my name). Thanks! Arakunem Talk 14:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Second, we need to ensure that the edits you make include information that is Verifiable through Reliable Sources that are unrelated to the topic itself. The rule of thumb for this bit is: We don't write about things we know, we write about things that others have already written about. Wikipedia is a "tertiary source" in that regards. As the Steven T. Murray article stands now, there is very little in the way of referencing of the information it contains. Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People require everything to be referenced to ensure that no incorrect information is added. Unsourced information is often removed entirely by editors who make routine reviews of such biographies. There would not be much left of this article if all unsourced information was removed, so please help by finding citations for the article's claims.
 * Lastly, several editors have tried to initiate a dialog with you on all these points, both here and at the article's discussion page, but you have not responded to any of these. Discussion and collaboration is critical to the way Wikipedia operates. It is important to keep a discussion going, and especially critical in regards to the aforementioned Biographies of Living People. Having a potential COI does not disqualify you from contributing, but discussion of those contributions has to happen as well.

OMG VANDALISM

Bell System Refs
Citing Citing Citing

Toolbox completley lifted from AlexF
 Toolbox