User talk:Steph0513

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Steph0513, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help

{{helpme}} Hello, I'd like some help editing the Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. article on my user subpage User:Steph0513/Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.. I would appreciate any assistance with this matter. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can help, what would you like help with first?--Cubs197 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would like the article to gain community approval so it can be moved from my user subpage. I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with the article, since everything is properly cited using reliable secondary sources. The admin who declined the speedy deletion did say that the page could use some copy editing. What do you think needs to be changed? Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll prob be working with you on this I might add another person here to help out, or I might not. I'll look at the article and think about it. Ok?--Cubs197 (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just let me know what I can do! I have written another section - Notable Cases - but didn't post it because of the speedy deletion tag. Should I post it now so you can take that into consideration as well or wait until you are finished with the current content? Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the admin moved the page to your user space was so you could work on it there and not in the main space. You should be working on that article in your user work space. You almost have no risk of getting a speedy tag on one of your subpages. You can post the section on your sub one yes. May I also ask, which admin declined the speedy deletion?--Cubs197 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fabrictramp declined the speedy. I'll post the new section shortly. Please keep me updated and let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thanks! Steph0513 (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure anytime. If you would like to, I could give you a link so we can talk real time with other users as well. I'll do that if you would like.--Cubs197 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would be helpful. Steph0513 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here's the message I post to other users:

If you need more help, you can either;

Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
Talk to us live, with this or this.

--Cubs197 (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Steph0513. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WuhWuzDat 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User:Steph0513/Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

I have moved the article out of the main namespace, to a subpage User:Steph0513/Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.. I would suggest that you work upon the article there, and then seek independent feedback from the Wikipedia community about it addressing the issues that have been raised with you. Once there is community approval, then it can be moved back to the main namespace.-- billinghurst (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the reconstruction of the article, obviously still some work to do, as indicated below, however, I have moved it back to the main namespace as it now looks okay for that zone. My brain wasn't up to creativeness and personal critiques of articles, which is why I had the janitorial hat on and the mop and bucket in hand. It also seems that another admin and I crossed-over in our actions in a similar time. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your help. I'm working on making the changes noted below. Steph0513 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

{{helpme}} Please help get this page (User:Steph0513/Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.) moved from my user subpage back to the main namespace by editing the content. Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, do you have a conflict of interest with the article subject? If so, please read WP:BESTCOI and the business FAQ.

Secondly, the best place to ask for a thorough review would be at peer review.

Thirdly, you could alwyas use the articles for creation system, as that will ensure that the article is checked by a third party before it is made live.

Cheers, Chzz ► 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have a conflict of interest with the subject. I have an 8-week internship with a different law firm each week and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. was one of those firms. I noticed that they did not have a wikipedia page when I was working there so I decided to create one on my own. I no longer work there nor are they aware that I am creating this page.
I looked at the peer review page but I'm not sure that's what I'm looking for. I just would like editors to read through the article on my user page and make changes so it can be moved back to the main namespace.
I also looked at articles for creation, but it seems that I do not qualify for that service since I am a registered wikipedia user.
Thanks, Steph0513 (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to try WP:EA. ∙ AJCham ᵀᴬᴸᴷ 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Hello again. Thanks for clarifying re. "conflict of interest" - I felt obliged to ask, as it is frequently a problem.

Although "articles for creation" is primarily aimed at people without accounts, there is no reason that users with accounts cannot use it. For example, in the case of 'conflict of interest', it is a sensible option for a regular Wikipedian who wants to try to create a balanced article and submit it - per the policies, they are not recommended to actually make it themselves. As you do not have a conflict of interest, you could simply move the article to mainspace yourself, if you wanted to.

If you wanted further checks, then peer review is one option available; as it says, "exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work" - I felt that this article was of such a size and scope that that procedure might be of use. If you think it would be too 'over the top', then, as it says, the requests for feedback is another option.

Sometimes helpers will work through articles and correct them - in this case, because the article is so large, it is a bit difficult. For me to thoroughly check it out would take several hours, and I simply don't have that time available. Normally, help requests are processed in a short space of time - hence my directing you to some of the other options available.

If it were me, I suspect at this stage I would simply move it to the live area and see what happened. If you don't want to do that, then peer review would probably be the best option; you could try the 'requests for feedback', but they tend to give overview guidance rather than specifically checking through details.

Let me know what you think; if all else fails, I will somehow make the time to deal with it myself.

Cheers, Chzz ► 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll try peer review and see if that works. I'm hesitant to move the article from my user page since it was nominated for speedy deletion. Although the nomination was declined by an admin, the page was moved to my user page for editing by a different admin. Where do I post the peer review template?...I tried putting it on the article discussion page but it said it should be placed on the talk page. Does this mean my talk page? Thanks so much for your help! Steph0513 (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean - I just tried it myself; although it doesn't explicitly say it anywhere (as far as I can see), it seems that 'peer review' will only work on live articles. Sorry about that; I didn't realise myself. However, it looks like you're trying the 'editorial assistance' thing now? Let me know if I can help further with it. Chzz ► 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm trying but it is not going so well. The editors involved are claiming that I do in fact have a conflict of interest and that the page reads too much like an advertisement. They are also claiming that my references do not make the law firm notable. I spoke with numerous editors yesterday who said otherwise, which is why I was told to remove the notability warning tag from the article. Since I wrote the page myself, I obviously don't think it reads like an advertisement. This is why I'm trying to get other people involved - the content is all there, it just seems that the tone needs to be edited. Of course I'm perfectly fine with this but I would like someone else to help me edit. So far I've only been criticized and vaguely told what changes to make myself by other editors. To be honest I've probably spoken to over one hundred editors and admins, all of whom have differing opinions on the page - but no one is willing to make any edits themselves. You're the most helpful user I've come across, I'm just not sure what I can do to convince other users that 1) I don't have a conflict of interest, 2) the law firm is notable enough for a wikipedia page, and 3) the tone is not too promotional compared to other law firms' pages - everything is supported by secondary sources, maybe the tone could be more neutral but it can't read merely like an advertisement. Thanks for any assistance you can provide, Steph0513 (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a look; I'll respond further ASAP. Chzz ► 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. 1 doesn't work - the address is wrong.
Ref. 2 looks like a paid-for service; does G&E pay a subscription to be part of legal500?
Refs 4 and 5 (gelaw) are primary sources, and therefore not acceptable to verify the fects
And ref 13
Refs 14,15,16,17,18 seem to be press releases, thus also primary sources
Ref 19 looks (I think) like a 'blog' type of site that anyone can contribute to; is "Joseph McCafferty" an independent reliable journalist?
Ref 20 press release?
Ref 21 as per ref 2
Ref 22 is primary source
Ref 23 is a press release (hence primary source)

...and so on, I expect. I'm sorry, please don't "shoot the messenger" - but I do see massive problems with the article. The vast majority of the information provided appears to be supported only by primary sources - that is, information provided in some way by the company itself - either directly (on their website), or indirectly (press releases or paid-for 'analysis').

Articles need independent sources; I'm sorry if this has not been explained clearly enough in the past, and thus I can see why you've had such a hard time of things.

A simple example: I could say that "Chzz & Chzz" was the best solicitor firm in the world. I could write that on my own website. I could issue a press-release. I could pay a company to analyze the co and show how great it was. None of this would mean that I could make an article about it.

I would have to provide references to (for example) the BBC, the New York Times, some respected journal, or something.

I'm sorry if this is negative, but this appears to be the core of the problem with this article. I do wish you the best of luck, but I think that it is important that this is made clear.

From WP:V: any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source.

In the case of anything even remotely approaching 'spam', everything is likely to be challenged.

From WP:RS: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

From WP:SPS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

I'm truly sorry that I cannot be more positive; I hope that, at least, this helps makes things a little clearer. Best wishes, Chzz ► 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Grant & Eisenhofer logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Grant & Eisenhofer logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]