User talk:Erik Raven

Speedy deletion of Website design platform
A tag has been placed on Website design platform, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant 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 as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Tckma (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why your page was deleted.
Hi. Regarding your query about your article being deleted, rather than send you an email by reply, I am responding here for a few reasons; the main one is that the links are easier from here, and secondly (unless you have a strong preference against such correspondance), I prefer to do all my Wiki correspondance on Wikipedia. I'll try and address all your concerns from your email. If I haven't covered everything, or you wish for me to go into more detail, then please ask. Firstly as it would make for easier reading, here's your email you sent me earlier: (note to anyone else viewing this - I have tidied up the line breaks and formatting, itallicised it, but other than that, it is the original email)


 * Good day Stephen
 * i have seen that you choose to delete my 'website design platform' article because it was 'blatant advertising'.
 * please explain to me why you did this, when i added in the article the other companys that already have an advertising page of their own in wikipedia.
 * my article was mainly about the wix company because most of its competitors already have a 'blatant' wikipedia page of their own.
 * you can see them here:
 * Pagii
 * ZCubes
 * Homestead Technologies
 * if there is some fundamental difference between these pages and the one i submitted, please notify me so i can rewrite my article.
 * thank you for your time.

The short answer to why I deleted it was that it read as an advert. It wasn't as bad as some pages I had come across, which does make the phrase "Blatant advertising" a bit harsh. Whenever an admin deletes a page, we have to give a reason, and for speedy deletions for spam (i.e. adverts), the choice from the drop-down menu is "Blatant Advertising".

It is possible to have an article without it reading as an advert. A very good example of these computing articles can be seen here - all those examples were Featured Articles - examples of the very best articles on Wikipedia. The reason they don't read as adverts is because they have been written with a neutral point of view. I do recommend reading through these examples. Something else that made it read as an advert was something that you admitted even to yourself. The article was titled "Website Design Platform", yet the article was (in your own words) "mainly about the wix company". It is a case of "2 wrongs don't make a right". Just because other companies have articles on here and they are written as adverts, doesn't mean you can. I will have a look at those pages you highlighted, and will make judgement calls as to whether or not they are adverts, and act accordingly. Remember - the article content must be about what the article says it is about. If it isn't then people start making assumptions about the motives behind the article.

So, if you can write it from a neutral point of view, then the article might be permitted to stay. I say "might", because there are still a few other issues that will need to be overcome. First of all, is it notable enough? Have a read of WP:NOTABILITY, in particular the sections on WP:WEB, and WP:COMPANY, as both seem to cover your article.If the article isn't noteworthy enough, then it will be deleted. Harsh, I know, but the notability policy was brought in to prevent Wikipedia being swamped by articles about every garage band, walk-on actor, high-school, website, etc. Looking a lot deeper into your article, there may well be a case for notability. However, it wasn't overly apparent, as it wasn't cited very well. Citing and referencing articles is not easy - heck, I have trouble doing it! Have a read of WP:CITE for instructions, and if that doesn't help, ask at the help desk - best not ask me about that...

One final thing you do need to bear in mind, and that is conflict of interest. Do you have any vested interest in the company and/or software? If so, then I recommend that you DON'T write the article. There is a general agreement on Wikipedia that you cannot be dispassionate about something you are heavily involved with. If something is notable enough, then someone else will write an article about it. By all means, if someone else has started an article, add information to it, and correct mistakes, but PLEASE declare yourself as having an interest in the article beyond that of a Wikipedian editor. The COI page gives you details of what you can and can't do. If there is no conflict of interest between you and the article, then forgive me for boring you with this last paragraph - but I would have been negligent if I hadn't covered this topic.

Ok, now you've trawled your way through my waffle, you are probably thinking about what to do next. Well, if COI isn't an issue, and you believe that it is notable enough for creation, then I can do this for you: I'll restore the page and move it into what is called a sandbox: in short, an area where you can experiement and edit to your heart's content while you deal with all the issues that I raised. I'll add a note to the article that it is work in progress, and to ask other admin to refrain from deleting it. Not a guarantee, but it should give your work a sporting chance. Once you are happy with it (and I can ask others to review it as well, if you like), I can then move it into main space.

If COI is an issue, then I suggest finding other articles to write, or contribute to. I see that you haven't been "welcomed" yet, so I shall add the welcome message after this. There are lots of useful links on there, all of which should help you with your future work on Wikipedia.

Hopefully, all that answers your questions. If not, then please ask! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Erik Raven, 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! StephenBuxton (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Adverts, or not?
I've had a look at the articles you highlighted to me; let me address each in turn:

Pagii - the original article didn't have very much content at all, and has now been merged into another article. Not an advert, although it does appear to be dressed up a bit with the word "Dynamic". Having said that, it may be that it is describing a site with a lot of motion, in which case dynamic is valid. Anyway, definitely not spam.

ZCubes Tricky, this one. It has been written in a matter-of-fact style, so it isn't really an advert. However, I can see why some people might think so.

Homestead Technologies This article was originally deleted. I had a look at the deleted version, and that was blatant advertising. It has since been rewritten in a more neutral manner, and includes references to controversy around the CEO. In short - not an ad.

Thanks for bringing those to my attention, and I hope my evaluation of them helps. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

wix
Seriously, altough I'm happy that you took time to add to wikipedia information on several social activities that are are being done by groups that try to make society better, I would thank you not add references to every time. The application used to build the website is just not relevant to the activity.

I see that your article on Wix was deleted. I don't know if the product is notable enough for its own article, but I think that your style of writing might have perjudicated its chances. I had to edit a pair of your contributions to remove stuff that sounded like buzzword lingo, like "the social power of the internet" twice on the same paragraph. This sort of florid prose and buzzword-heavy prose is looked at very negatively by most wikipedians, so I suggest that you try to avoid.

I recomment you try to read Writing better articles, specially the "use clear, precise and accurate terms" chapter. Try to start a draft on User talk:Erik Raven/Wix I see that your article was already restored somewhere else, avoiding the problems I mentioned. Since it's on userspace, you will have a bit more leeway and it probably won't get deleted so fastly (unless you write it very badly). Once you have something there, you can ask other editors to review it. You can drop a note on my talk page and I'll try to give you a bit of advice on improving prose and balance on your draft.

(Sorry for the harshness of this post, I had written a better one but I accidentally closed the browser window). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I added your restored page to my watchlist. I'll check it when it pops on my watchlist to see if I can lend you a hand. I solved a few format problems. For the references, you should move them to the appropiate place on the article. The "reflist" tag will list them automatically on the "references" section. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your article
As it doesn't appear that you have any COI issues, and are interested in writing an article, not an advert, I have restored your article and moved it to User:Erik Raven/Website design platform. I've dropped a note on the article's talk page requesting that you be given a chance to edit it.

From looking at the above letter from another user, it looks like you do have an issue with the prose you use. To avoid any future issues, I suggest you have a read of WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL - these are good guides to words and phrases to avoid. But as to how to write an article, you might find the following helpful:

Anyway, there is a lot of reading there, so you may just want to dip into these. One of the rules of Wikipedia is ignore all rules, which is there to say that you don't need to know all the policies before you edit. However, I would recommend at least getting an understanding of things (grin).

Unless you have any firm wish not to, I would rather we correspond on Wikipedia rather than via private email. I have seen in your email that you are a genuine editor, but other people (particular those mop-wielders, also known as administrators) won't see what I've seen. So, when you're ready, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll check it out/move it/whatever needs doing. I'll also be popping in to your article from time to time to see how things are progressing. If you need a hand, let me know. However, if it is help about images or references... best ask at the help desk (sheepish grin) as I'm no expert on those.

Happy editing! StephenBuxton (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I've added a link to your article on your user page, to save you the hassle of trawling through this page to find the link each time. If you'd rather not have the link on there, feel free to remove it.  Strictly speaking, other editors shouldn't edit user pages without permission (sorry!), but I find it is useful to have all your links in one handy place.  As I said though, it is your user page, so remove it if you wish. StephenBuxton (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

External link
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.  Ty  18:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Erik Raven
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a free webhosting service. Wikipedia is not a place to post personal content, host personal websites, or do things that are not directly related to adding to or improving the encyclopedia, as you did at User:Erik Raven. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)