User talk:LunaLoca785

Regarding your edits to Doughnut:
Your recent edit to Doughnut (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Original good
A tag has been placed on Original good, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Original good and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix talk  23:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

World of good and Original good articles
Hi Luna - Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've dived into the deep end editing here! It can be frustrating to come in, add what you think are great articles and then see them torn up by other editors. So let me explain a bit about why I have made some very significant changes to the articles you've edited so that in the future you don't end up losing lots of work.

Your comment here indicates that you came here with a particular point of view - that fair trade is good and people should know about companies that engage in it. But Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view. (Not that most people here think Fair Trade is a bad idea - just that the tone of our articles and content ought to be dispassionate).

So the way you wrote the articles tended to be really quite promotional from Wikipedia's perspective - taking claims by the company at face value and not looking for critical independent coverage. I toned down a lot of that language - removing prods to our readers to visit the stores attributing claims where possible and adding requests for citations where I couldn't. And I used the one independent source available as the basis for the description of the eBay merger because we're not really about repeating marketing claims of companies.

At Wikipedia we also consider whether a subject is suitable for an article by considering WP:Notability since World of Good inc. itself seemed to be of marginal notability it's brand name was even less so. To help readers out I consolidated the two articles into one. People searching for or linking to the Wikipedia Original good article will be automatically forwarded to the World of Good article where the brand is mentioned. Since most of the content you put in the Original Good article came directly from their website it was unsuitable for the article itself (both from a neutral point of view perspective - especially undue weight - and because it is a copyright violation to simply copy and paste somebody else's content in this manner.

There are still problems with the World of Good article because it does not have significant independent sources. Most of the news coverage links in the article were dead and I couldn't find mention of World of Good on the papers' sites using the search functions. We could do with some good in depth independent pieces in national publications. So anything you can do to help with that would be really useful.

I hope the changes give you some idea of the sort of tone we should be aiming for with articles. If you have any questions please feel free to leave me a message at the bottom of my talk page. Happy editing -- SiobhanHansa 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)