User talk:Chignell

A tag has been placed on Interactive media laboratory requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear Chignell: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Introduction
 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How do you edit a page?
 * How do you revert to a previous version of a page?
 * What about copyrights?
 * Community Portal

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes ( ~ ). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your form is fine
Hi. I noted your comment on your page. I hope it isn't surprising that what you did was completely appropriate. (I assume you corrected a factual error that is easily checked.) Where Wiki gets sticky about self-editing is when individuals misrepresent themselves. Or indulge in self-advertising. It's unfortunate that Wiki policies are sometimes so abstruse they hinder legitimate contributions, but that's a long story the Wikimedia Foundation is struggling with. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Givebuttons


A tag has been placed on Givebuttons, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Quiggers1P (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Givebuttons
You were right that the article wasn't unambiguous promotion as required by the tag applied. Unfortunately, the article doesn't demonstrate any notability for the company (see WP:CORP), and for a company as new as this, this is probably not going to be easy to show. Any claims to notability (note - this is our meaning of the word) should be backed up with reliable independent sources WP:RS. I've changed the tag to a more correct one for lack of notability. Please note that not every company fits this standard, and it can take time to achieve the necessary. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Givebuttons
You are right about the notability issue. This is a hard one for a new venture, but I feel much better about having the concerns about the page be directed at the issue of notability. You are right that notability is a hard thing for a new venture to demonstrate. If you can wait three weeks we will have a new release of GiveButtons that has collaborative payment buttons attached to products and at that point I think we'll have a good claim for notability due to the innovation, especially if we can get good press. I'm biased of course, but I see no harm to the Wikipedia community to keep the page up for a few weeks while we do our best to address the notability issue. Chignell (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just deleted the article, because its subject failed Wikipedia's notability requirements; that said, nothing is lost, however: if you email me, using this form, I'll be happy to send you a copy of the deleted article, so that you can recreate it, when you feel you've addressed the notability issues. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 18:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Givebuttons
At the risk of tipping my hand still further, the next step I was planning was to put a link to GiveButtons on the Social Shopping page. How about I agree not to try and link the page to any other pages while we resolve the issue of notability? Chignell (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
Hello Chignell. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Mark Chignell, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * 3) Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * 4) Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. date=July 2011

- Hi. Perhaps I need some guidance here. I have been trying to conform to Wikipedia policies, as I understand them, but I believe that sometimes it comes down to judgment calls and I expect that editors who have been involved in a lot of similar discussions about Wikipedia pages will have a better perspective than I have. Throughout the Mark Chignell page I have tried to stick to ascertainable facts. I should also point out that I was not the person who originally created the page (and I didn't delete the original content, so it is only partially autobiographical, and I believe that others have contributed to the page), although once it was up I felt duty bound to make it accurate and representative of what I have done. The page is currently linked to University of Canterbury (notable alumni) and to Intelligent Databases, so I'm not sure if the orphan tag still strictly holds. My company Vocalage has been in business since 2003 and is a significant part of my activity. However, I will remove it from the list of external links if people think I'm violating the policy. As for the GiveButtons launch, it's presented as a fact with no spin that I can tell and given the recent growth of interest in social commerce and social shopping I believe it to be topical and of interest to Wikipedia readers.

I am a strong believer in Wikipedia and I do not want to do anything to undermine the integrity of its content. If upon reflection the editors continue to believe that there is a problem with my page then perhaps we should look for changes that preserve as much of the content as is reasonable given Wikipedia policies. Chignell (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)