User talk:Cneeds

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Cneeds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

User:Cneeds/Sirshree Tejparkhiji
It has been moved. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:CentreStructureConcept.JPG
Hello, !

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:CentreStructureConcept.JPG. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Cneeds/Showcase website has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Showcase website, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Showcase website, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Chzz  ► 23:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Hmph
You know, I was going to write you a careful and detailed explanation of exactly what was wrong with that page you were working on in your userspace. Normally if a page is being actively updated, as yours was, I wouldn't just delete it without at least warning you.

But then I reread the (deleted) content. And I realized it would be far simpler to just show you.

So. I've restored the userpage. And I've trimmed out the content that was overly promotional, the fluff, the puff, the blather, the peacock feathers and the tinsel and the merchandising and advertising and PR.

The earlier content is still accessible via the page history. But you will notice that I have brutally trimmed the content. These are the bare bones of what an article should be, Cneed, and you were covering those bones with fat, grease, lard, and blubber - but no organs, no muscles, no skin. Just fat.

Understand? DS (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do understand DS and I apologise for the hassle this has caused you.
 * My plea, in mitigation, is that I was simply gathering information about the subject and was not paying particular attention to the promotional aspect of this since the article is still in my user space and not anywhere near ready for subission.
 * I will go through the content and should there be anything that I think should stand I will present my case to you as I appreciate your feedback.
 * Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Cneeds (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I apologize if my tone seemed rude. DS (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary, you were just doing your job.
 * Actually, you made me laugh (with what you left of my poor article) and, though I'm still laughing, please give me your honest opinion as to why the following statements are considered promotional:
 * "A recent phenomena appearing on the internet is a type of website that acts as an interconnection between wealthy, philanthropic aficionados and charitable organisations.
 * "This is the voice of a community committed to spreading the word on exceptional, known or lesser known, products and services. From the finest in contemporary and classic fashion, cars, yachts, jets, timepieces, jewelry, services, real estate, art, home and design, through to the very best in music, lectures, travel, hotels and cuisine. The concept is to showcase everything that embodies the pinnacle of sophistication and good taste."
 * "Content offered is exclusive, independent and professional, so that it can be trusted."
 * "Articles about the very best in products, services and people, the luxurious, the exceptional and beautiful things in life, everything that embodies the pinnacle of good taste and sophistication. From the finest in hotels, cuisine, travel, cars, and yachts, to jewelry, private jets, timepieces, classic and contemporary fashion, through to real estate, art, home, and design are disseminated via weekly news, unbiased reviews, travel tips and updates from some of the most distinguished brands, events, destinations and individuals throughout the world."
 * "The team of aficionados is dedicated to promoting reputable organizations involved with charities in order to acknowledge all the men and women who have endeavored to make their dreams of a better world come true. Together they continually strive towards a better future and a better tomorrow"
 * In order to be promotional they need to be promoting some entity. Are you of the opinion that I am promoting the website? What I thought I was doing was stating facts about it.
 * I am creating the article to support another article on showcase websites and it is one of many that I want to do in order to demonstrate the (currently) four types of showcase websites that I have identified thus far.
 * Perhaps your reason for deletion should have been "original research"? If that's the case please advise me on how to overcome that.
 * I am contacting the verybest webmaster to see if there is any serious literature about what they do. I Hope there is and that it will be citable.
 * If I can achieve the above then I have a project. If not, then I'll ask you to delete everything. Cneeds (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ((breakin)) sorry for breaking in, but I can give you some feedback. I'll go over those statements one by one below, but the conclusion is, no, we can't use any of those statements. It all comes down on two things: tone, and verifiability. As to the tone, ask yourself: if I opened an encyclopedia, and looked up an entry for a magazine, which read " [this magazine has] Articles about the very best in products, services and people, the luxurious, the exceptional and beautiful things in life, everything that embodies the pinnacle of good taste and sophistication.", would you think that's neutral and unbiased, discussing the company in an encyclopedic way? You would probably be lying to yourself if you could answer that question with a resounding 'yes'. It's no so much that it's directly trying to sell something, but it conveys an underlying thought of "the content of this magazine is Awesome(tm)"
 * The second thing is verifiability. I'm going to play a bit of a cheap trick here, and mark below everything that would need a citation from an independent reliable source (for good sources, see the very clear, yet slightly condescending (my apologies for that) WP:42). Though the trick is cheap, it is not in any way false.
 * "A recent phenomena appearing on the internet is a type of website that acts as an interconnection between wealthy, philanthropic aficionados and charitable organisations.
 * "This is the voice of a community committed to spreading the word on exceptional, known or lesser known, products and services. From the finest in contemporary and classic fashion, cars, yachts, jets, timepieces, jewelry, services, real estate, art, home and design, through to the very best in music, lectures, travel, hotels and cuisine. The concept is to showcase everything that embodies the pinnacle of sophistication and good taste."
 * "Content offered is exclusive, independent and professional, so that it can be trusted."
 * "Articles about the very best in products, services and people, the luxurious, the exceptional and beautiful things in life, everything that embodies the pinnacle of good taste and sophistication. From the finest in hotels, cuisine, travel, cars, and yachts, to jewelry, private jets, timepieces, classic and contemporary fashion, through to real estate, art, home, and design are disseminated via weekly news, unbiased reviews, travel tips and updates from some of the most distinguished brands, events, destinations and individuals throughout the world."
 * "The team of aficionados is dedicated to promoting reputable organizations involved with charities in order to acknowledge all the men and women who have endeavored to make their dreams of a better world come true. Together they continually strive towards a better future and a better tomorrow"
 * Almost all things I tagged there have either a vague definition (really, who determines if something "embodies the pinnacle of good taste and sophistication"), are overly detailed, or unverified. It reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedic entry. When you claim this text doesn't promote the website, I ask myself, if that's so, why does it read like a brochure?
 * I'm sorry I couldn't be more positive in this regard, but this content is just not suited for us. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Martijn, thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of my dilemma. Now I understand where you're coming from (so much better than DS's swift carving knife).
 * I will take some time out to digest what you've now told me and will, in due course, present version 2 of "verybest" that meets (or at least attempts to meet) the criteria as specified. Thanks again and best regards. Cneeds (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi anyone, in terms of the above, please tell me why | Boston (magazine) is acceptable to wikipedia and not promotional so that I can follow their lead. Thank you Cneeds (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's only one thing I can see in 'Boston' that I would worry about, and that's the word 'proudly' - but I'm not worrying enough to tag it as needing citation. Compare that article with your pre-pruning one. It's easier to point to things wrong that to point out good things. Wording that's neutral is just that - neutral. Wording that isn't neutral hits us regular editors like a blast of cold air when someone opens a window. To a person involved with the PR side of business, it would look good. To creators and maintainers of an encyclopaedia, it looks like advertising. The use of 'florid' language when no promotion is actually intended is a problem for us. Some editors (from India in particular) seem unable to achieve the neutrality required here, possibly because of the way their home language works. PR people seem to share this problem, as do estate agents and car salesmen (inter alia). I often wonder how they talk when off duty... If you follow the style of 'Boston', I can't see much going wrong. Remember that you are not (or at least must not appear to be) selling or promoting anything. we know that articles are sometimes written by people with close connections to their subject. So long as it is not obvious, and so long as a good article showing the notability of the subject results, I for one don't worry too much. Just remember to read WP:OWN, and that an article can be edited to show the down side of something (so long as it is neutrally worded and reliably referenced) - and you cannot prevent it. (Except by even more reliably disproving it...) Peridon (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A few more points:
 * As background to the difference of approach: Wikipedia is so vulnerable to being used for promotion that it has become extremely resistant to anything that looks like it. New users approach it as a sort of super-Myspace, but it is (trying to be) an encyclopedia, which is something quite different.
 * As Peridon says, people with a PR background, or who are closely involved with their subject, seem to have genuine difficulty in understanding what is promotional. Sometimes this is extreme: I have been told "This is written with no promotional tone" about a text which included "phenomenally successful... extensive knowledge of fashion design... revered for his rare ability... an arbiter of taste... his inventive images... "
 * See WP:PEACOCK. When you write, imagine a hostile critic looking over your shoulder saying, for every glowing adjective and indeed for every claim:: "Who says? Can you prove that?"
 * Make a very strong effort to think of yourself as writing, not for your subject, but for Wikipedia about your subject, from outside. No opinions, just neutrally-stated facts cited to reliable sources.
 * As a comment on the Boston article, the tactic of saying "Self-described as" and then repeating their own fluff seems to me a dubious way of sneaking in some promotion.
 * Read Wikipedia's law of unintended consequences.
 * I'll remove the "helpme" as I think the points have been fairly thoroughly covered - add another if you would like more advice. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Userspace pages
I have move the page, as you requested, to User:Cneeds/Taiwan "Mr Fingaz" Green.

The easiest way to make a userspace draft is to go to Help:Userspace draft and fill in the form there. You can do it yourself, just by making a page which starts with your username "User:Cneeds" followed by a forward slash / and the page name. If you start a draft article that way, it's a good idea to put the userspace draft template at the top. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you John, I appreciate your assistance and advice. Cneeds (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am very confused. I submitted this article for creation about 10 days ago. It was rejected because of no inline references yet there are at least 8. The rejection notice was sent to Skhardenavis who I initially thought was the reviewer. But it seems that s/he inserted an inline reference that doesn't comply with policy and the article in question was rejected for inclusion in main space as a result of this.

Please can someone with excellent wikipedia tracking skills investigate and let me know if I am or not correct? Much thanks (I know how busy you all are). Cneeds (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See my talk page. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Tej Gyan Foundation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

April 2012
Hello Cneeds and welcome to Wikipedia. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Pol430 talk to me 13:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Pol430, welcome to Wikipedia too! If you are referring to the fact that I am currently in South Africa and not at my usual IP address in Botswana this is DEFINITELY not a reason to make such alarming conjectures. You will see, if you look carefully enough, that I have not used the Botswana IP address since the 17th April which is when I came down here to SA. BUT, if this is a hassle tactic because of my objection to the way one of your fellow admins handled my recent article submission, be bold enough to just ask me to leave wikipedia, and I will. Cneeds (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Err no... Actually it's because this account has been actively editing Tej Gyan Foundation and pages connected with it (User:Cneeds/Sirshree Tejparkhiji). Bizarrely, the page Tej Gyan Foundation was created by another editor User:Skhardenavis. This gave rise to the impression that you and User:Skhardenavis are one-in-the-same person. This belief was compounded when you responded to the rejection of Tej Gyan Foundation at Skhardenavis' talkpage. You received the good faith message above because I was unsure if you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicy on multiple accounts. I have no idea what you are referring to with: "because of my objection to the way one of your fellow admins handled my recent article submission", but having looked over your contributions, if the best you can bring to this community is a handful of spammy articles and an attitude problem, then I would not encourage you to stay. Pol430  talk to me 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Pol430 for explaining the situation to me NOW and not when you sent your first alarming message. I don't know how it came about that Skhardenavis submitted the Tej Gyan article and all I could find was their activity immediately after my original submission of adding a reference to a blog. I'm sorry that you consider my articles spammy and I'm really happy for Wikipedia that it has so many excellent contributors that it can afford to lose one or two suspect ones along the way. I certainly didn't have an attitude before the treatment by the reviewer who initially rejected the Tej Gyan article, reverse the decision when I politely pointed out their shortsightedness and then had the gall to tell me that I had done a good job of fixing the article in the interim. Unfortunately I have some promises to keep so, if I'm not to be ejected, then I will continue writing a little longer and, God willing, get better at it. All the best. Cneeds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey


Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Cneeds/Center for Humanity


A tag has been placed on User:Cneeds/Center for Humanity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. mabdul 15:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)