User talk:Nicholas Powell

Nicholas Powell, you are invited to the Teahouse
I posted an article. Within hours the following message appeared at the top of the article page - "This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (September 2012)"

Although I authored the piece I have vetted everything multiple times through an outside source, precisely to ensure the article was neutral and have statetements made backed up by outside sources wherever possible. I will review the article again with my oustide source (who knows the topic as do I) and see what we can do to make the article sound more neutral. Subjectivity is a factor and I may have read somewhere on WikipediA that the author tends to be best possitioned. My outside source and I tried to only present what was necessary to get the facts accross. Will give it another few passes passes and maybe can addrees (we have edited the content over 100 times before leaving sanbdbox).

The exteranl link is perpahps where I could initially use help. One exteranl link (source) is the Web site of the Foundation we wrote about. There are only so many, in fact limited, outside sources as the Foundation is not that old and not that known. I have sourced all known outside sources out there beyond the Founadtion's web site, and these are geerally well respected and considered highly credibel - such as the National Post (a top Canadian national newspaper), various departments of the Gov't of Canada, even the Canadian Prime Minister's Official web site. If I delete the Foundation's web site as an external link, one of the most informative sources would be denied Wikpedia readers who see this article.

I understand WikipediA's policy and completely agree it must remain neutral to be credible. I had this in mind when writting. An informed reader will be able to make the distinction of what is credible. Perhaps the message generated at the top of my article page is autmoated and hinges on key words and what not, and the outcome might be slighlty different with human interevention.

What do you suggest?

Thank you very much.

Nicholas

Thank you.

Nicholas Powell (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

 * Hello Nicholas: in order to reach a larger audience, I suggest you post your question at the Teahouse (if you have not done so already). Also, please don't forget to use the WP:Edit summary window for every edit you make. To avoid making many small edits in a row, please use the WP:Preview button to check your work before saving. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

simialr

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) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)