User talk:Cjneversleeps

Speedy deletion of Corrections.com

A tag has been placed on Corrections.com 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 web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections.com

The article was deleted this time because it did not have verified assertions of notability, which is a criterion for speedy deletion; A7 to be specific. Otherwise, the article was written well. A good way to show notability is to find newspaper or online articles that give significant, non-trivial coverage and discussion of your website. If you would like, I will restore the article to a subpage of yours so that you may work on it and address the concerns raised before you move it back to the mainspace. If you would like to do this, make a note here or on my talk page, and I'll get it done. If you need any further assistance, feel free to ask me on my talk page. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability, you need independent verifiable sources to show that it meets the notability guidelines. Your own website is obviously not independent. You also make statements that would possibly difficult to verify eg widely unknown and often misunderstood. It's quite spammy eg promotes pride, collaboration and learning among the vigilant men and women who secure the walls of our more than 4000 prisons worldwide. What does "our" refer to in that sentence? Basically, you need independent references to support what you are saying, and a more neutral descriptive tone. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com. You may work on it here. As for an article to look at to base yours off, you seemed to have a good format; it was just notability. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the ACA, I've just filleted the article, since it was full of unsourced spam. I could have deleted it in its entirety, but it's clearly notable so I left a stub. Prison Officers Association isn't quite what you are looking for, but it's neutral, referenced, and shows you the way to do in-line references that look tidy. Basically, when you write a fact, you put <ref>[url description]</ref> immediately after the next punctuation, and the {{reflist}} template at the end does the list for you. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re deletion tag: I have commented there. If it results in anything other than a quick keep, I'll be very surprised, among other things. I don't see anything that you need to do at the moment, but if the need arises, I'll let you know.

The only thing I might suggest is if you clarified your position in relation to the website in question. As I made note on the MfD, a conflict of interest is not always a bar to editing, but it causes greatly increased scrutiny. It would perhaps be best if you clarified just who you are in relation to the website (no real life information, but just what role you play). I also note that you have been adding links to your website on prison-related articles. Be very careful about doing this. Read WP:EL and take that page into consideration. Also, in my opinion you will be looked more favorably upon if you branch out your edits to doing other mainspace contributions. Copyedit articles that aren't about prison and related subjects, add references, format to comply with the WP:MOS et cetera. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. The concern here is the article still reads like an advertisement for the site. If you are a part of the organization and are writing the article, it violates Wikipedia conflict of interest policies. Wikipedia articles should not be written by those having close ties to the subject in question and definitely should not be written by committee. This seems to imply that you are creating the article for self-promotion. Redfarmer (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [1] ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

I had honestly forgotten about this matter until now, but I wanted to apologize to you for so hastily bringing your article to MfD a few weeks ago. I was having a bad week and I took it out on you by not assuming good faith. I know my mood isn't an excuse but I am sorry. Redfarmer (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nominated again, since you didn't edit it: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Cjneversleeps/Corrections.com_(2nd_nomination). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]