User talk:Marycdrl

Hello {{SUBST:PAGENAME}}! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}|your contributions]]. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ~~~~ Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Pascall+Watson

Hi, I have to say that my first action was to block your account as a sockpuppet of User:Pascall+Watson, but I then realised that the block on that account somewhat generously allowed you to carry on editing with a new user name, so I've unblocked. You should not be editing on behalf of a company rather than yourself, but I'm not going to change another admin's block. The company is clearly notable, but I deleted the newer version of the article because it was effectively no more than an (unreferenced) list of the company's projects, which is basically just spamming. You told us little about the company itself other than locations. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?

You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I've seen worse, and you may be able to produce something acceptable, but you need to distance yourself from your employer and write a neutral balanced article as if you were an outside observer. Not connected to the deletion, but I suggest that you use this format for your refs to make them more informative than a bare url: <ref>[url description]</ref> Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, your contributions don't suggest that you are a completely uninvolved new editor who just happened to pick this company at random. I'll post the deleted text here shortly. let me know if you want me to comment at any stage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the deleted page, and I absolutely cannot see anything promotional about it. Can you explain, Jimfbleak, what you see as promotional about it? And are you sure you are not allowing yourself to be unconsciously influenced by Marycdrl's previous username, which did suggest a connection to the company, and may have predisposed you to see anything she writes as being promotion for the company? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, I've given my reasons above and sandboxed the article for improvement. If you think it's OK for article space as it stands, that's fine with me. Just move it, and I'll leave it alone. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: OK, I agree that the "project list" is the sort of thing that I regard as mildly promotional, but that might at most justify removing that section, not deleting the whole article, and even then it's borderline, in my opinion. I see nothing promotional about the lead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson:, that's a fair point, and I accept that I don't much care for companies posting about themselves. The text is back anyway. Personally, I think it's better in the sandbox for now, but as I said above, I have no objections if you want to move it to article space Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson::@Jimfbleak:I appreciate the second opinion. Look at any other comparable architecture or engineering firm and its full of project list and awards won. I actually used coding from other architecture pages to try to form a confirming page. Marycdrl (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have some more thoughts on this, Mary, but just now I don't feel up to collecting those thoughts together and writing them in a coherent form. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow morning. Please remind me if I haven't come back to you by about midday tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson::Hi. I'm keen to hear your feedback. No major panic on it though. Many thanks. Marycdrl (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK, Mary, I'm sorry that I didn't get back to you in the time frame that I intended to. I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and if I don't deal with something right away it tends to get lost somewhere in the background of my brain, while my attention moves on to other things, and it never gets done. Thanks for prompting me.
• I have looked at the article again, and I really can't see it as substantially promotional, but I do see two things which look somewhat promotional. What is more, they are two of the sorts of things that often come in real spam articles, so that anyone with a significant amount of experience of dealing with spammers on Wikipedia will be likely to pick up on them, and perhaps give them more weight than they really deserve. I suspect that that, combined with your previous username, are what led to the article being seen as promotional.

1. The list of "Notable projects" is the sort of thing that tends to be included in articles written by companies for promotional purposes, in the spirit of "Look at all these important projects we have done, proving what a great company we must be". I don't myself feel that in this case it looks very promotional, unlike similar lists in some spammy articles, but even so, it would probably be better to get rid of the list, and replace it with a sentence or two, saying something like "Pascall+Watson were the architects for London Heathrow's terminals 2 and 5", and so on. Also, try to give sources for the work. You do have a source for Heathrow Terminal 5, but not for the others. Since you know that Pascall+Watson worked on those projects, you must have got that information from somewhere, and if that somewhere was a published reliable source, you can give it as a reference. Ideally, give sources for all of the projects, but certainly give them for as many as you can.
2. "Pascall+Watson have been involved in major projects worldwide as concept architects and delivery architects" does read very much like the sort of language used by marketing departments. I am sure it is true, but the way it is expressed comes over as promotional. I don't know much about the architecture business, and have only a hazy notion of what "concept architects and delivery architects" means. If it is important enough that you feel it really needs including in the article, then perhaps you could incorporate it into the opening sentences. Otherwise I suggest just dropping it. It probably doesn't add much information about the company to most readers of the encyclopaedia. I definitely recommend dropping "involved in major projects", because for one thing it reads as promotional, and for another thing it is redundant: it is obvious that a company that has been involved in work on the various airports you mention has been involved in major projects. My own inclination would be to simply drop the whole sentence.

• Wikipedia can be an intimidating, confusing, and threatening place for new editors. When I started editing seven years ago, I found things rather frustrating, and you have had a much worse introduction than I had, so I fully understand the comments you have made expressing your frustration. Unfortunately, many editors who come to Wikipedia full of enthusiasm for the idea of contributing to the free encyclopaedia very quickly get disillusioned and disheartened, and leave. On the other hand, there are many of us who stick through the early stage, and find that once we are used to how things work, contributing to the encyclopaedia really is rewarding. I really hope that you will fall into the second category, not the first. I will give you a bit of advice that I have given to a good many new editors whose first experiences have been discouraging. From what I have seen happen to numerous new editors over the years, I am certain that it is best at first to avoid writing new articles, and stick to making small improvements to existing articles. That way, the mistakes you make (and you will make mistakes, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the frustrating experience of seeing hours of work thrown away. Gradually, you will learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is considered acceptable and what isn't to be able to write new articles without fear that they will be deleted. What I have seen over the years has totally convinced me that editors who start by making small improvements to existing articles have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who dive straight into creating lots of new article. That is the advice I have given to a lot of new editors, and I now offer you the same advice, but with one exception. Despite the deletion, in my opinion the article you wrote is much better than a good many Wikipedia articles. I would encourage you to do some more work on it, taking into account the suggestions I have made above, and we can then move it back into article space (or "mainspace" as it is usually called), and after that I suggest you stick to improving existing articles until you have more experience.

• All of what I have said is advice, not instructions, and it is, of course, up to you whether you take my advice. However, the advice is based on a large amount of experience of how things work on Wikipedia.

• I am posting to the top of this page a rather belated "welcome" message, which includes links to various pages giving information about editing Wikipedia. Don't try to read and learn all of it before you do any more editing, because there is far too much there, but do have a look at any of them which seem to be relevant to your needs at the moment, and of course you can always come back and read some of the others if they become relevant in the future.

• Finally, please do feel welcome to contact me if you have any questions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)