User talk:SH514

Brause
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brause, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.exaclair.com/brands_brause_history.shtml.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

J. Herbin
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of J. Herbin, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.jherbin.com/about.shtml.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 14:31, 23 August 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! Snowysusan 01:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Quo vadis planners


A tag has been placed on Quo vadis planners, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It 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 encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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 belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — 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 but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

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. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Exacompta


A tag has been placed on Exacompta 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. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rhodia Pads


A tag has been placed on Rhodia Pads, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It 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 encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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 belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — 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 but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

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. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations: just say no
Hey, SH514, you've been creating a lot of articles recently that consist entirely of text copied and pasted from other websites. With a few exceptions that don't apply here, this is a bad idea and contrary to Wikipedia's policy on copyright. When writing an article, you must write in your own words; you cannot just copy and paste from a copyrighted source. Copyright violations are one of the few things that Wikipedia itself can get into legal trouble for, so we have to be extremely careful about avoiding it. If you're interested in writing articles about paper and stationery companies, you should also look at our guidelines about promotional editing and notability; companies must be notable to have an article about them on Wikipedia, and the article must be neutral in tone and devoid of advertising. Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Exacompta
Hi. Concerning the copyright status of the Exacompta material, I'm afraid the owner giving you permission to use it is not sufficient for the material to be copied into Wikipedia. The problem is that Wikipedia content is itself onward licensed by the terms of a CC-BY-SA license, which permits people to re-use it with attribution, for any purpose, even commercial. Thus in order for it to be possible to copy material into Wikipedia, it must first be released under a license at least as free as that. The best way to create an article is to write it in your own words. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the other thing is that to create an article about a company or organization, you will need to be sure it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, described at WP:NCORP, and that you have sufficient 3rd party reliable sources (see WP:RS). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that, as I've said above and at Talk:Rhodia Pads, copyright infringement is not the only problem with the articles you've been creating. Most of them appear to be too promotional in tone for Wikipedia, which is not surprising, given their origins. Even if the copyright status were okay, the material would still not be appropriate for use in Wikipedia. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have also deleted Clairefontaine Paper Mills, Brause, and J herbin, because in all cases they were either direct copies of, or close paraphrasing from, copyrighted material. Also, they were again written in something of a promotional tone, and there were no third party sources provided to attest to each company's notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And again, you have created G Lalo, which contains close paraphrasing of copyright material, is presented in a promotional tone, and has no third-party sources attesting to notbility. I must ask you to stop creating these articles and talk to us here where we will help you understand the problems. If you continue to create these problematic articles, you are likely to be blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You might find the Wikipedia policy page Close paraphrasing of some help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a question. Say I want to use a 3rd party's website can I reference them and put them as an external link? And it won't be their words but simply put them as a external link so you guys can stop taking down my pages. If that's allow then I get it.


 * I fear that you guys will continue to have a biased opinion on pages I create and will delete them anyways from now on. So I want to make sure that I can link to other places without it being copy right infringement.


 * Well, that depends. Linking to an external site won't be copyright infringement, but it might not be acceptable for other reasons, depending on the site and how it is used.  If you're using it to cite a fact about the company, then that should be fine; you should read about how to cite sources to learn how to do this.  If you're just using it as an external link in a way similar to a "see-also" section, we have pretty strict limitations on that, as explained here, in order to prevent people from spamming all kinds of links on articles to increase traffic to their own sites at the expense of Wikipedia.


 * Honestly, though, don't worry about the deleted articles. As long as you're learning from your mistakes, we won't hold it against you.  Wikipedia is a pretty complicated place, and it's tough to get the hang of at first.  Just hang in there, and don't be afraid to ask any of us for help. (The Teahouse is a great place to ask questions about Wikipedia, if you need another place!) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * . The Exacompta material, for instance, included stuff like "ledgers of exceptional quality... finely bound, with thick mint or ivory paper and crisp, clear print... still known for their consistent quality." That is advertising, PR-speak, full of "peacock terms" (unsupported adjectives of praise), and anything like that is deleted at sight. A Wikipedia article should contain no opinions, only plain facts, neutrally stated and cited to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for any kind of advertising or promotion, and is very resistant to being used in that way. For that reason, it is very seldom worth making a copyright release in order to copy a company's own material into Wikipedia.


 * If you are connected with the company, or employed by them, please read Conflict of interest and Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. One reason why editing with a COI is strongly discouraged is that editors with a connection to their subject find it hard to write in the required neutral way. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Creating company articles
To reply to the questions you asked at my Talk page, JohnCD has given you some good examples - the real problem is that you are copying/paraphrasing the companies' own material, which is written by their marketing departments, and is not written in the tone required by an encyclopedia. Also, copying or close paraphrasing of such material gives us copyright/plagiarism problems. Here's a few other answers... Sorry if this seems hard (and there is a lot of stuff to learn about creating articles here), but I hope this helps. What I suggest you do is choose one of the companies, search for sources, and then list the sources here - and I'll be happy to give you my opinion on whether I think they are suitable sources for an article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You also say you are providing third-party sources, but you actually are not - you are mostly providing just the companies' own web sites. Please do have a read of WP:RS, which explains the kind of sources you would need.
 * Also, have a read of the general notability guideline at WP:GNG which says that a topic needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and explains in some detail what that means.
 * And please read WP:NCORP, which explains the notability needed specifically for companies and organizations, and says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources".
 * Regarding linking to 3rd party sources, yes, that's fine, providing the article itself is written in your own words and not copied or closely paraphrased from the sources. But do note again that a company's own site does not constitute a 3rd party source - it is a 1st party, or primary, source. Also, do be aware that sites like company directories, commercial listings, etc, are not considered to provide the in-depth coverage needed by WP:NCORP, and you need to find genuinely independent sources talking about a company in some depth. To learn how to cite these sources, please see WP:CITE, which explains how to do it.
 * Then, if you can find enough reliable independent secondary sources that talk about a company in a non-trivial way (for example, not just stating that it exists and what it sells), you may be able to write an article about the company in your own words.


 * I appreciate your help. I have a question. Can I use blogs as 3rd party references?
 * No; blogs don't meet the standards of a reliable source, since they are generally self-published and so have no oversight that indicates the contents are reliable. If it's an official blog of the company, they can be used to reference uncontroversial facts, but they wouldn't count as "third-party" for the purposes of notability or other concerns, and even then, real reliable sources would be strongly preferred. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Other kinds of sources that are usually not acceptable include private web sites, social media accounts, forums, other wikis, Twitter, Youtube, etc - essentially, if something is self-published without editorial oversight, it isn't regarded as a reliable source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay that makes sense. So I want to make a page for Rhodia notebooks and there is a page already for Rhodia the chemical company. My question is should I try to model my page after their page? Would it help if I did that? I guess my main concern is that while Rhodia notebooks are very well known not many people write about it. For example the New York Times is not going to write about a notebook. So what if I did a really simple page with just a few facts about the product and a brief unbiased history would that work?
 * You might have a problem with this one. I've just done some searching, and I can find plenty of outlets selling Rhodia notebooks, and even a blog or two that mention them - but I haven't been able to find the kind of sources needed to satisfy WP:NCORP. As you say, it's not a subject that's likely to find its way into many national newspapers. The outcome may just be that there is not sufficient notability out there, and the company article cannot currently be written (without the sources, the styling of the article won't really make any difference). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is unfortunate. Okay well this helps me with the other pages I want to create if I can find the necessary sources. Thanks for all the help and if I have any other questions I will definitely ask before I create. Thanks again.


 * It might help to know why we have the rules on notability that we have; just ignore this if you already know the drill. What you have to realize is that notability isn't some arbitrary thing we made up to exclude some articles and not others. The underpinning of notability is our policy on verifiability, which basically means that everything we write in an article has to be able to be verified by references to reliable sources.  The thing is that, on the Internet, we have no way of knowing who's writing what, and whether they're telling or even know the truth about what they're writing.  The only way we can be at all confident that our articles are even remotely correct is through verifiability and reliable sources.  The point of notability is to ensure that there are sufficient reliable sources to be able to write things that are verifiable; if a subject isn't notable, then there probably aren't enough reliable sources that discuss them, which means that there isn't enough material for us to write verifiably about them.  And if we can't write verifiably about them, then we have nothing to put into an article, and we have to delete it.  Our information is only as good as the sources that back it up, and non-notable subjects just won't have any. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What Writ keeper says is all true, but there's another reason for the notability rules: they give us a way to decide what to put in and what to leave out. Instead of making subjective judgements: is this important? interesting? useful? valuable? we ask the more objective question: have other people, unconnected with the subject, thought it important and significant enough it write substantial comment about? See WP:42 for a guide to what that means. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)