User talk:Michael Leeman

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Michael Leeman! I am Giftiger wunsch and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Speedy deletion nomination of Widen Enterprises
A tag has been placed on Widen Enterprises, 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 as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. D•g Talk to me/What I've done 22:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A few comments on User:Michael Leeman/Stat-Ease, Inc.
I had the chance to give the article a thorough read today. I'll try to take a look at your newest article soon (gotta go and shovel snow! It snowed a bit last night over here.) Some minor pointers:
 * The number of employees is inconsistently stated, as 12 in the lead paragraph, and as 14 in the infobox. Which is it?
 * Symbols such as ® aren't usually accepted in articles
 * There's no need to pipe links (for example, —when there's no change in the actual text, simply , without the underscores, will do just fine.
 * Minimum-Resolution IV and Minimum-Resolution V experimental designs were invented by Pat Whitcomb and Gary Oehlert in 2004—I don't know what the terms Minimum-Resolution IV and Minimum-Resolution V mean. Please clarify/define these.


 * Finally, may you please preview my changes to make sure I didn't mess up anything? This article is better than most of the articles I've created and a lot of the new ones I see while patrolling—good work :). Airplaneman   ✈  12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words about the article. I appreciate it very much! Thank you as well for your comments/changes (they all look good), which I'm noting for future reference. There is still much for me to learn. I have corrected the number of employees (it should be 14) in the first paragraph and added clarification of the terms "Minimum-Resolution IV" and "Minimum-Resolution V" along with a reference. Can you please let me know if the article can be moved to the main page or if further changes are needed? Thanks as always!Michael Leeman (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure :). I like having an solid window of time to focus/concentrate on article work, usually an hour+ (janitorial [admin] work is quicker and easier, so I can continue to do that when I'm busy in real life) and next week is more free for me. I hope to review your drafts then. Airplaneman   ✈  15:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope you have a good week.Michael Leeman (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is ready :). Airplaneman   ✈  14:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Arkeia Software
Hi Michael,

I'm honoured that you would ask me to review your subpage! Unfortunately, I am currently bogged down with work outside of Wikipedia and will be unable to make any substantial contributions to the project at least until May 8th. If you're willing to wait until then, I will gladly review what you've written at that time. If you'd prefer get the page moved to the article space sooner, I would recommend contacting another administrator to request a review.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, and I have moved it into the mainspace at Arkeia Software with a couple of tweaks. No harm letting Neelix check it when he can, though, I am not particularly expert at articles. One point: at the beginning of "History" it says the company was founded by three French engineers, and then lists four names. I tripped over that when I read it: if the "three" are the first three names, perhaps better to say "was founded by three French engineers, A, B and C together with CEO D". Also a technical point: while an article is in user space it should not be in any categories. You can list them, but comment them out with until it is moved to mainspace. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dropping by
Hello Michael, I got a chance to look through my talk page today and realized just how long I've left your requests sitting around! :o I apologize. Looks like some nice people took it up :). I'll be traveling most of the summer and will most likely not be on Wikipedia then, so I won't be of much use then. Anyways, happy editing as always, Airplaneman   ✈  23:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick note for you
Hi Michael! I`m busily working on an essay for some continuing education right now, but if you give me a nudge in about two weeks I`d love to take a look at your pages! --Xnuala (talk)(Review) 05:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

PAM-CRASH
Hello Micheal. I quickly reviewed this article as you have requested. I think it is acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I think it is clear and well written. It appears to be well sourced mostly by research teams publishing in scientific and technical journals. I haven't personally reviewed all the sources. I also added categories. I will add appropriate wikiprojects on the discussion page. I notice this program has many applications. Also, it is always refreshing to read a new, or relatively new, article written according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This has the added dimension of being well written. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Electronic Prescriptions for Controlled Substances
Hello. The ariticle as you originally wrote it certainly gives a good overview of the topic. I hope you don't mind, but it appeared to me that the article needed to define or describe the topic. It seemed that was missing to I provided a definition in the introduction. There are now two paragraphs in the introduction which is OK. However, feel free to copy edit to your liking.

I also added a history section which can give more depth to this article. Feel free to copy edit that. Also, I am not sure where to put the history section, so please feel free to decide that. It seems to be OK where it is, but maybe you have a better idea.

There seems to be some sentences that match copyrighted material either verbatim or closely paraphrased. For example this Medscape article and some lines in your article closely match. If there are other such issues in this article I reccomend rewriting in your own words as best you can.

Overall the article was very well written to begin with. Again, always refreshing to read a new, or relatively new, article written according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Thanks and keep up the good work. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Hi, Micheal. Thanks for your request. Unfortunately my participation is limited at this time, and probably will be for at least a week. If you want your article reviewed sooner you may wish to ask someone else.

Also hopefully you saw my earlier reply to your question, here Steve Quinn (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mike, unfortunately I have no idea when I will return to Wikipedia at this time (other than doing a few edits every now and then). Sorry - and thanks.   Steve Quinn (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of PixelMEDIA


A tag has been placed on PixelMEDIA, 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". 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 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. Night of the Big Wind talk  23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

status, and some general comments
As reviewing admin, I did not delete it, because I think it is fixable. But it does need fixing. so do the other articles written mentioned above, which have similar problems, even the ones some of editors thought satisfactory: they may be minimally satisfactory, but they need major improvement. I've mentioned my comment hereto some of the people who have been advising you, because I do not think they are advising you adequately.

A Wikipedia article needs  to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. . Don't talk about gifts to local charities & other trivia. Don't talk about the importance of the companies it sells its own products to: the articles on those companies will indicate it sufficiently. Don't repeat the name a dozen times: replace it by the word "it". Don't include minor press releases that do not indicate anything about the company, e.g. "1n 1997 PixelMEDIA weighed in on the ongoing battle between Apple and Microsoft..." Don't use wordy phrases, e.g. "fully customized", "significantly boosted"--in fact, remove all adjectives of quantity and quality--I'd even say remove as many adjectives as possible; to express quantity, use numbers. Don't write in a series of short paragraphs, like a web page. Wikipedia may be on the web, but it's an encyclopedia.

I'm concerned also about the use of trade names in nonstandard capitalization. WP:MOS/Trademarks says we generally normalize them after the first use. I'm even more concerned about the listing of multiple applications. This sort of lists of customers are in my opinion promotional; enough should be said to indicate the importance of the product, not to serve as testimonials. In particular, explaining why the application is important to the world in general seems promotional. But yet more, I'm really concerned about the practice of inserting back references in the articles on these application to the products you are discussing. This is, as I see it, out-and-out spamming--increasing perceived importance by increasing the number of links.

I'm also concerned about listing more than the main category of products in infoboxes, and listing the names of other officers of the company than the CEO--these are not standard practices here. For some of the very most important companies, we do discuss the chief officers, but not routinely.

Most important, remember not to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, which are usually more expansive.

You are apparently writing these articles as a paid press agent, or possibly a specialized contractor for writing WP articles. Neither of these is prohibited, but both are traditionally discouraged. I'm among the people here who think these roles can be perfectly OK here, as long as the articles are written to high standards. I've tried to defend people here who do this, but I can only do this if they do maintain the highest standards. Remember that as a paid press agent, you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

I'm also one of the people here who have most strongly defended articles on commercial products when they are challenged at AFD. But my ability to do this, depends upon the articles being as strong and a encyclopedic as possible

I'm going to come back and check this and the other articles next week; if I do not see the improvements, I'll do the cutting myself for at least one of the articles to get you started.  DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * DGG, I took a quick look at PAM-CRASH and left a comment on the talk page there. Micheal, the above feedback from DGG is valuable and plaese put it to good use. In fact, I think it is a good idea to apply this feedback to all the articles that you have authored for Wikipedia. I suppose I was hoping that you would edit these articles over time to improve them -- and I should have said that instead of assuming that. In any case, as a reviewer --- in the future I will have to return to yours and other's articles to see how they are developing. Thanks for your contributions --- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll find, Michael, I've already done some of the editing. I tend to do it in multiple small passes, so there's plenty left to do. As I've been doing it, some positive points of style occurred to me: Names of newspapers and magazines are italicized, even in reference links, and there's a technique for combining reference links using named references, which I applied at Widen Enterprises. This is particularly applicable when one repeated refers to the company's own web sites. I think reporting market share is a good idea, especially for small companies in niche markets where there might otherwise be a question of notability, but that needs to be sourced--but if you can find the total market and their sales, arithmetic such as division is not considered the forbidden Original Research.  I also noticed there that some of the statistics in that article were outdated; in working on a private company that does not publish financial data, you may be in a position that other editors are not, which is to ask them to publish the key information you need to show market share and growth of the company. You are also in a good position to release an illustration according to WP:DCM. A professional picture of the CEO is not that meaningful in an article about the company, but a photograph of their plant, or even better, one of their products, is very appropriate. If they're making software, they can release a screen-shot. A good article should have at least one illustration; it makes them look more readable. For these articles we're talking about, one or at most two is sufficient. (For a bio article, like Yossi Sheffi a portrait is always a good idea.  But if they want to release additional photographs of products to WP:COMMMONS, they might be used by others, which benefits everybody,
 * You asked me what I meant by inserting back references. I mean edits such as this one and this one and this also, though in this case adding and linking the name is appropriate. My next step was going to be removing the inappropriate ones.  DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Prompted by DGG I have looked again at Arkeia Software, the article I moved into mainspace for you back in May. I OK-ed it on the basis that (compared with many we get) it was not overtly promotional, its claims were sourced, and it did not use peacock terms, so that it was not speediable and would probably survive a challenge at AfD; but reading it again I see his point: it is clear to any reader that the author's main aim is to say how good the company's products are. I have no detailed points to add to DGG's excellent advice above, but only a general point about attitude: it helps to make a strong effort of will to think of yourself not as writing for the subject of your article, but as writing for Wikipedia about the subject. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the cleanup, I have removed the maintenance templates from the pixelmedia page. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sheet metal forming simulation has been accepted
 Sheet metal forming simulation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Michael_Leeman help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Proposed deletion of Widen Enterprises


The article Widen Enterprises has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of PixelMEDIA


The article PixelMEDIA has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of PixelMEDIA


The article PixelMEDIA has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable web marketing agency, borderline spam.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)