User talk:Taratrask
|
Deletion
[edit]Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. Please add your messages to the bottom of the talk page, or they may be overlooked. I usually block usernames which appear to be representing an organisation without the option of creating a new account. I did not do that in this case because another editor made favourable comments. I'm not sure, though, that you have taken on board that this is an encyclopaedia and not free advertising. I deleted your article because
- it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: serving victims of crime and abuse... Safe Horizon touches the lives of more than 250,000 victims of crime and abuse and their families.... Safe Horizon provides hope, healing and refuge to victims... Safe Horizon's website is accessible for the Spanish-speaking population.—That's just from the first paragraph, basically a press release, not facts
- that is important to helping sexually abused children get the help they need?—however worthy the aim, we are not here to campaign on your behalf
- You attempted to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Although not a reason for deletion, note that not all your sources are satisfactory. Blogs are not RS, your own site is not independent and sources quoting your organisation, like some of the NY Times are not independent in that situation. Your references would look better with a description <ref>[url description]</ref>
I'll restore here shortly for you to improve. If you want any help, let me know. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Taratrask, I have read your comments at Jimfbleaks talk page. While your article contained a great number of sources, the wording was still too emotional for an encyclopedia like ours, and this will inevitable look like promotion and puffery to an external reader. Moreover you were using many sources that are affiliated with Safe Horizon which makes them unsuitable per our guideline for reliable sources. E.g. take this sentence: "Each year, Safe Horizon touches the lives of more than 250,000 victims of crime and abuse and their families." This "touching" metaphor has been used here in a statement by Safe Horizon's partner Cooley LLP. Such primary sources are never suitable for verification of big numbers because they are involved in the matter, and it is obvious that Cooley would use a positive tone in a public report about themselves. A neutral and factual encyclopedia, however, would write something like "Safe Horizon attends to an annual 250,000 victims of crime and abuse including their families" while citing an independent source. Jim has already mentioned it above but please let me also suggest the following:
- Try to find sources that neither cooperate with Safe Horizon nor quote any numbers they have been provided with by the organisation.
- When writing your text, avoid any sugar-coated phrases as can be found in press releases and the like. Wikipedia is interested in facts but these facts may not be presented in a shiny light giving the impression that the writer endorses what Safe Horizon does.
- It's these tiny bits and pieces that matter. De728631 (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Following on from De728631's comments above, you don't have to be selling things for text to be promotional If I say "George W Bush was America's greatest ever president", I'm not selling anything, but most people wouldn't see it as an objective encyclopaedic comment
- Similarly, you need genuinely independent sources. I note that BBB just reproduces your text in its blurb, and is therefore copying your own promotional words a beacon of hope... we have grown... nation`s foremost... leading the way... innovative and holistic programs... we assist... a host of other innovative and well – respected programs.— you are effectively referencing to your own spam.
- However the BBB source does contain lots of financial and other facts which could be used to add credibility. To say "the organisation raised $46 in grants and spent half that sum on a domestic violence hotline" is better that your "we are the greatest" style of text
- I can't help but think it is you who are biased against this page for whatever reason.— you are too involved in this emotionally to be objective, and you are now lashing out with ad hominem attacks. Please assume good faith, you are not helping yourself here
- it simply wants the public to know about its services for entirely ALTRUISTIC reasons— if that was true, it would be written factually, not in the kind of emotional tone that is used, as here, to the promote your organisation and encourage support
- 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. As it stands, if you do not accept that phrases like Safe Horizon touches the lives of more than 250,000 are unencyclopaedic, and view constructive criticism as malice against your organisation, it will struggle to survive
- For what it's worth, I'm a Brit, I'd never heard of your organisation before I saw your article, and I have no interest in it beyond ensuring that you meet our editing policy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again. Well, the two articles you linked were pretty poor, largely unreferenced and non-neutral, but yours was the one that landed on my plate, they can wait for another day. You don't need to be so defensive since we are all here to make a better encyclopaedia, whatever you think of my motives. Bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit; your organisation doesn't own the page, and you should welcome assistance with improving it rather than taking it as a personal affront.
- I've had a quick run through the sandboxed version and made some minor tweaks. Up to you, but I'd suggest that you format the rest of the refs like I've done the first four, looks so much better. "US" is preferred to "nation" since other countries do exist. Headings should follow normal capitalisation (only caps for first word and proper nouns). As a purely stylistic point, lots of very short sections look amateurish and don't help the flow of the text, but again that's your call. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
[edit]
Hai!