User talk:Swordswfriends

Welcome!

Hello, Swordswfriends, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Rosacea Society (May 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Need more sourcing that isn't connected to the website or its research papers.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National Rosacea Society and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:National Rosacea Society, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Swordswfriends! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Swordswfriends! You created a thread called Facebook-hosted copy of a certification? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Neisson (rum) (May 21)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by DGG were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Advertisement for non-notable product line

DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Distillerie Neisson has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Distillerie Neisson. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Rosacea Society has been accepted

National Rosacea Society, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~Kvng (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Damoiseau Rhum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bourbon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lily Born (November 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Joe Born. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Doesn't have much notability apart from her co-invention with her father.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lily Born and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lily Born, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Hoochery Distillery has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Hoochery Distillery. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hoochery Distillery has been accepted

Hoochery Distillery, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Northern Escapee (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hoochery Distillery for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hoochery Distillery is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoochery Distillery until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing.

The content you added to Anil Dash was excessively promotional and indistinguishable from paid editing. Please carefully review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, specifically #Paid editors. Please then very carefully review Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and follow those instructions as applicable. You may also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: Amusingly, a significant portion of the "promotional" language that you stripped out was in the entry prior to my contributions, and you left in bald promotional links while removing legitimately noteworthy additions. I am a veteran journalist; perhaps you're mistaking my voice for promotion. Swordswfriends (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in personally verifying your career history, but it doesn't matter very much. Unfortunately, being a journalist doesn't preclude being paid for editing. Likewise, it doesn't preclude you from having to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on promotional editing. These guidelines apply everywhere, including Hoochery Distillery, where you have padded-out the article with an excessive amount of trivial and non-notable awards, often without any sources or with unreliable primary sources.

As I said, your additions are indistinguishable from paid editing, regardless of your motives. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: My point in bringing up my journalism training was to note that my journalistic writing style may not match your idea of an encyclopedic tone. As I stated in the Talk page for Hoochery Distillery, I recognize that the awards list is excessive but there doesn't seem to be a consensus about what awards should be included; some distillery/brand entries list many awards, others list very few. This is a case of inexperience, not paid editing. I have no connection at all to the Hoochery, and have not been paid by them. Rather than penalizing work that in your opinion seems paid, I would welcome your advice on how to write more in line with Wikipedia style. Dismissing work that doesn't match your expectations "regardless of motive" is neither productive nor in the spirit of Wikipedia. Swordswfriends (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that the writing was journalistic, it's that it was also PR-like. The line between these two is as blurry as it ever was, but hopefully we can agree this distinction is important.

You added this to the article, as just one example:

Dash has written and spoken extensively about the social and ethical considerations of internet technologies, being recognized for writing about "The Web We Lost" and the IndieWeb, the idea that "regular people might own their own identities by having their own websites, instead of being dependent on a few big sites to host their online identity."

This was all only supported by his own blog, which doesn't even mention the term "indieweb". Editorializing about how extensive something is, and that it has been recognized, and telling readers that this kind of stuff is encyclopedically significant, as at best a form of original research. As a journalist, these kinds of WP:PEACOCK terms should be familiar to you already as red flags, and they are also red flags here on Wikipedia. Since this was is only supported by a primary source, it is also promotional.

The simplest advice I can give you on avoiding PR-like writing is to avoid vagueness and euphemisms. Don't just say "recognized". Instead, use a reliable, independent source to explain how it was recognized. If this doesn't seem like a level of detail that readers actually care about, then it's not meaningful to tell them it's been "recognized" in the first place. Not every detail belongs, and not every source that is superficially reliable needs to be cited in any particular article. This also applies to less flattering terms like "controversial". (see WP:CSECTION for more on that).

I have responded on the distillery talk page with more specific comments about that issue. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell:

Thank you for this clarification — yes, the lines between journalism and PR have blurred considerably. The passage you flagged was not written by me; it predated my edits by I don't know how long. It may appear to be my work because I copied the entry over to my sandbox as I drafted my additions and looked for citations, and then pasted everything back in. I agree that it was rather editorial, but I left it alone since it had previously passed muster.

Thanks also for your guidance on the Hoochery awards section. I will keep those guidelines in mind in the future, as I've been intermittently working on entries in the spirits category since it's not very well developed.Swordswfriends (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added the passage with this edit. It was not in the article prior to this edit. I had previously removed a somewhat similar passage specifically because it was too promotional. Your edit restored a version of that content that added peacock terms and vague filler. You are responsible for your edits. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Grayfell. That's promotional writing. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]