User talk:Cemmur

Welcome!

Hello, Cemmur, 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, such as Sage City Symphony, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sage City Symphony

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sage City Symphony requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cemmur. You have new messages at WP:REFUND.
Message added 15:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply to your question on my talk page, and advice

I am sorry if we sound suspicious, but Wikipedia is very vulnerable to self-promoters and correspondingly resistant to being used that way; many of them are so convinced of the virtues of their subject and/or so soaked in marketing-speak that they are genuinely unable to see a problem with it - you may have seen higher up my talk page somebody protesting "This is written with no promotional tone" about an article which included: "phenomenally successful... obsessive and extensive knowledge of fashion design... revered for his rare ability... an arbiter of taste... his inventive images... " etc. Unlike an organization's own website or a Myspace page, a Wikipedia article should be written as from outside the organization, with no praise or opinions from the writer, only neutral facts cited to reliable sources.

The relevant code of practice is Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I suggest that the best way for you to proceed is to start at WP:Articles for creation. That will talk you through the article creation process, and while response time once you have finished is not guaranteed (everyone here is a volunteer) it should be no more than a few days.

Read WP:Your first article first, and also WP:Verifiability: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" and WP:Notability, a requirement to have a Wikipedia article, which is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it important and significant enough to write substantial comment on?

You said you were worried that something might be posted "by someone with a less neutral approach". I should explain that one important difference between Wikipedia and sites like Myspace is that nobody "owns" a Wikipedia article, not its first author and certainly not its subject. Others can and will edit it, you will not be able to insist on a preferred version, and people sometimes encounter Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences.

Your comment about Vermont reminded me of a book I read by a journalist who had been given access to the engineering team of a computer manufacturer working under pressure on a new, extremely fast computer, so that their work involved worrying about nanoseconds and picoseconds. One morning one of them had disappeared, leaving on his desk a note which said "I am moving to a commune in Vermont and will henceforth deal in no unit of time shorter than a season".

If you have any more questions, you can reply below here - I will watch this talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More advice

The way to propose it, when you are ready, is to put {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} at the top, two curly brackets each side. Copy it from this page. A "bot", an automatic system, may then move it to another title, but if so it will tell you.

Generally, looking good, but despite your efforts to be neutral, I still see some opinion-type adjectives: "a high caliber of amateur as well as professional musicians... " "He has a strong background and intense interest in contemporary music... " I am sure you will say "but that's true!", but the relevant policy is WP:Verifiability which includes:

"any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

See also WP:PEACOCK. More comments tomorrow, maybe. Please make any reply below here - it is easier to keep a conversation in one place. This talk page is on my watchlist, so I will see if you put anything here. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Cemmur/Sage City Symphony has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sage City Symphony, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. Petan-Bot (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sage City Symphony. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Monty ₈₄₅ 01:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sage City Symphont. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

My page was rejected based on the references and the reason stated needs clarification before I can go further. Specifically, the reviewer found external links to websites of items such as local media where the link demonstrated the organization's existence rather than a specific activity of that organization. There are two problems with this criticism as stated that make it difficult for me to fix anything.

1) The organizations where the links were pulled are exactly the same as some that were left standing, for example media and public schools in the area of Bennington VT. The only difference between the links that were pulled and those that were left standing is that the ones remaining have previously been placed into Wikipedia. For example, the Long Trail School high school is in Wikipedia, the nearest adjacent public school in North Adams has not been put into Wikipedia. The Bennington Banner is in Wikipedia, the next newspaper 9 miles away is not. References about the details of these organizations are rather varied in Wiki. So - am I supposed to leave these organizations off entirely even though they are used as described, or leave them in without any indication that they exist? I can't tell from the comment.

2) Local newspapers in this area (and most now) kill their older calendar listings and have taken to hiding their older articles behind a paid subscription service. I believe it is antagonistic to Wiki's ethic to send a reader to a link that requires a fee to see anything.

3) Lou Calabro is in Wikipedia with the statement that he started this orchestra, standing by itself, as well as being cited as performing Tina Davidson's work on her Wiki page. Both lack any corroboration without having a page in Wiki for Sage City Symphony.

Thank You, Celia MurrayCemmur (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Sage City Symphony, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Jim Richard Wilson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as C-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cemmur. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]