Jump to content

User talk:EpiphanyVP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, EpiphanyVP, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

I hope the links in the above template will be helpful to you. In particular, let me draw your attention to the notability criteria for articles on companies. If your company meets these, it would be great to have an article about it. However, I also need to have you read this policy page about conflict of interest, if you haven't already done so. You should create the article through our Articles for Creation process, as I mentioned above: here is the information about that. Finally, we don't allow user names that suggest someone is editing on behalf of a group of any kind, so consider changing yours. That can be done here. But I don't judge it to be a serious infraction as is - it identifies you within the company - so in my judgement (I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia) that can wait. Let me know here or on my talkpage, or simply use the {{Help me}} template again, if you need further advice. You can also try the IRC help channel, but it's thinly staffed right now because of the holidays. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

[edit]

I'd like someone to review my article on our firm and supporting documents. I feel there are significant historical facts and would add to the wiki resource library. I have no idea what to do. I have posted them all in my contributions. I have more resources, but they are less than 100 years old so not sure if I should include those.

Hi EpiphanyVP: I hate to say this, but the only contribution I see from this account is this post to your talk page. Is it possible you posted the material on your company under an IP or a different user name? Did you create a submission at Articles for Creation? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:EpiphanyVP/sandbox (December 24)

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the references there, I just don't know how to create the reflist - the numbers are way above there my actual sources are. Do I copy them into the <rel> code in the actual article? How do I populate the reflist accurately? --EpiphanyVP (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To insert the references at the bottom of an article, insert the text: {{reflist}}. I hope this helps! -- Ross HillTalk • Need Help? 18:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict - we're saying the same thing :-) ) Hi again. Help:Referencing for beginners sets it out, but basically:
  • Between <ref> and </ref>, type the text you want in the footnote (or use a citation template). Like this: ... in 1891.<ref>John Doe, What Happened in 1891, New York: Generic Publisher, 1981, ISBN 9999999999, p. 21.</ref>
  • Create a section at the bottom of the page headed either References or Notes, and beneath it put this: {{Reflist}}.
Your references will now appear as footnotes, automagically linked to numbers in the text. Does that make sense? There are multiple approaches to referencing (and many ways to do the content of the footnotes, including the templates), but footnotes are the most common and what you have set out to use. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} I have updated my reflist per your instructions - thank you for the clarification.

My question is - I have several originals of the sources. news clippings from the early 1900's, obituaries, stories, videos, etc. I have scanned them and uploaded them into the "contributions" section of my account. So... if I want to reference those, can I do that?

Also, if the source is from a case, I can see those cases in our resources because we have a subscription, so I couldn't link to them on the internet, however, with the case name, state and year someone could verify the cases. Is this sufficient?

Is there someone available to review my submission before resubmitting it to see if I am addressed all their rejection concerns?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

--EpiphanyVP (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rules say verifiable, not on-line visible. For example you'll find lots of science articles, citing journals that need an expensive subscription to the American Chemical Society or similar - all are allowed. With the vast number of editors, it's likely that someone else will have a subscription - and if they do, then your article is likely to be of interest to them. So long as the source is a reliable one, I don't see a problem.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Thank you for the clarification. I feel pretty confident I have the article ready now, do you suggest I just resubmit for consideration or is there someone that can review it first? --EpiphanyVP (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the draft a little, but many of the sources seem problematic to me. For example, Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, and court cases don't make good sources about a law firm either (see also WP:PRIMARY). For example, I doubt State of Iowa v. Garrettson, 4 Iowa 338 (Iowa 1857), mentions that it's Mr. Hubbard’s first reported case. I doubt an eulogy is a reliable source on the deceased's abilities - I have yet to see one that says, "The dear departed unfortunately was an incompetent hack." And what exactly is meant by "Original available"? Available where, to whom? How could I look up the original? I have added a couple of {{fact}} tags to some particularly bold unsourced claims, but there are more that would also need sources. Huon (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I am confused. I will need a bit of clarification. Wiki doesn't consider itself a reliable source??? So I should NOT link to other articles with in Wiki? Also, the other user Ronhjones thought the cases were a good resource. The case is relevant showing the date in which it was argued and for whom supporting the statement of first case and tie to type of work. What do you suggest? The question I posed earlier is still unanswered - regarding original available. I have several original documents that are from the early 1900s in our firm history file that I have scanned in, and uploaded to my account, but I don't know how to submit them for consideration as a resource. Shall I post them on our website? The video should I post is on YouTube? Would it then be considered a resource? Or are those not even considered useful resources? Do I even need them? Lastly, I see you are asking for citations on a few items in my article. One in particular is regarding the statement "one of the oldest continuously operating law firms west of the Mississippi River." I Google that statement as I am unsure how to cite that fact... If you google it. You will find that Lathrop & Gage claims to be the oldest continuously operating law firm west of the Mississippi River. Wiki even has it listed in their article. But they were formed in 1873. We were formed in 1854 so their page is obviously inaccurate. I am not saying we are the oldest, I am just saying one of the oldest. If we are older than the oldest, I'd say our statement is pretty accurate. Reference http://www.lathropgage.com/about-history.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lathrop_%26_Gage I see they only cite it back to their history page. Is this sufficient citation for my article as well? Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

--EpiphanyVP (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said So long as the source is a reliable one - I did not check them out, just explained that sources do not have to be on-line.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Huon do you think I need the reference to the case at all? Maybe the statement doesn't need citation. thoughts?

--EpiphanyVP (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to related Wikipedia articles are meant as a convenience for our readers, not as references for verification of the article's content.
References should be reliable, published third-party sources such as articles in newspapers, reputable magazines or law journals. The Lathrop & Gage article should not serve as an example to emulate, but rather as a warning: Grandiose claims without a reliable source to back them up. In fact it should be improved immediately or deleted. How can I tell that your claim of greatness is more accurate than theirs?
Your firm's history files are not considered reliable third-party sources; how could I verify what your archives say? How could I tell that you haven't photoshopped the documents? A law firm simply does not have a reputation for fact-checking historical information, nor would such scanned and uploaded documents have been subject to any editorial oversight. I'm not saying you would fake such scans, but I have seen faked scans before, so this isn't just hypothetical, and Wikipedia guards against such attempts with strict requirements for what counts as a reliable source. At best such scans could serve as primary sources for what you say about yourselves, but not for historical facts.
Regarding the case, I don't think you should cite it at all, but the claim that what was to become Shuttleworth & Ingersoll had its first case in 1857 would definitely need a reliable source.
Also, you should take a look at Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest. Writing about your employer is usually not a good idea. Huon (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New help request

[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to respond User: Huon. Can you please tell me how to "link to related Wiki articles" instead of use as a reference? I want to do it right.

I understand regarding the claims. What type of resource would you suggest I look for as a reliable source of our first case if not the actual case record file? Or are you saying the case is the appropriate source? Just want to be sure I do what you are asking. Thanks for your clarification.

I understand about the archives I have. I wondered about that. I just wasn't communicating my question properly. The old documents and journals are pretty cool! But I completely understand how others could and would falsify documents. For the record, we would not. But I understand the rules. I was afraid of that, because I wasn't sure how else to reference the information.

I also understand the conflict of interest. Which is why I spent several months vetting this to be sure it was historical rather than a marketing piece. Removed the fluffy stuff. In fact, most of the historical stuff isn't even on our website. I honestly do feel our firm history is noteworthy or I wouldn't be wasting my time. If you feel it would be more productive, I am happy to hand over the information to a third party writer. How do I get in contact with a willing party? I understand the paid writer is also a bad idea.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thanks, --EpiphanyVP (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to {{help me}} request: For information on linking to other Wikipedia articles please read this article: Help:Link —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link User: Wtwilson3. Those instructions are a bit confusing. I believe I need to do this. [| State Capitol ] in my article. I want to link to the Iowa Capitol page in Wiki but I want the words State Capitol to appear. Is this correct? I have a small lock showing. Is that how it should look? Thanks for your clarification. EpiphanyVP (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not quite right. If you use this text: [[Iowa Old Capitol Building|State Capitol]], you will get this link: State Capitol. Please note there should be no spaces between the brackets "[[" or the pipe symbol "|". Also it is not necessary to keep adding the {{help me}} template to the page. Several of us are watching your page, and we will return as needed until all your questions on this issue are resolved. Just use the {{help me}} template when you have a new question some time in the future. I also recommend you learn and use the sandbox to practice your editing. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, you can click the "edit" link on any Wikipedia page to view the code and see how other editors have accomplished the things you want to duplicate in your article. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK cool! Thanks! EpiphanyVP (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have updated all the internal links per your instructions. Thanks for your assistance. User Wtwilson3 this is my first time. I thank you all for your patience and assistance. Good tip, I was unaware I was allowed to use the "edit" on other pages. I am hoping to hear back as to if if should hand this article off to another for conflict of interest purposes and clarification on the case being a good reference for our first case per User Huon Thanks again! EpiphanyVP (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are an editor, just like me, you may edit anything you like. That's one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia. Regarding your page, you have a couple problems. You're aware of the potential conflict of interest issues and you would do well to follow the advice in these 2 bullet points from the decline notice:
Beyond that I would recommend reading the articles in this list. The biggest problem is the article reads like an advertisement. To improve it you should rewrite the promotional content from a neutral point of view. Those articles I linked will help. But getting help from an experienced AfC editor using the AfC links above should be your first step. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the new year I posted a request for assistance per your suggestion with a link to my submission. I can't find it now. I can only see this one. Can you please tell me where I can request a AfC to either edit this or rewrite it? I am happy to hand it over to a neutral party if that helps. Thanks, EpiphanyVP (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on my content and finding reliable sources. I am also trying to include facts per previous reviewers suggestions. However, I was told fact tags were added to my article, but I don't see them. Are you able to point me in the right direction to find those?

I would really appreciate someone taking the time to review the article again to see if I am working toward the right direction. I posted a request in December to get assistance per your suggestions, but I haven't heard anything back. Maybe I didn't post it right?

In an attempt to support the community involvement portion of the article, I have listed the organizations members of the firm have a long history of board involvement, volunteering and charitable giving with. If I link to those site where it shows the years of service will that support the statement in the story or is that too much.

Any other areas where I can work on improvement would be helpful. Thanks, Christa

EpiphanyVP (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the tags with edits such as this one, where the source you provided for how good humans the Shuttleworth & Ingersoll attorneys are is their own website. Excuse my cynicism, but that leaves me pretty unimpressed. In fact, the source you provided for all the contentious statements I tagged was their own website.
Besides that issue, what I'm most concerned about right now is the "community" section, which should either be rewritten based on reliable third-party sources or removed outright. You have some third-party sources, but going by what they're currently cited for, they don't seem to discuss the company but individuals which happened to work at the company at one time or another. If the company itself has a reputation for charitable giving, you should cite a source that explicitly says so.
The history section also has a major problem with sources that don't mention the article's topic and, consequently, original synthesis, a form of original research that's not permissible on Wikipedia. Finding an independent source that links Abraham Lincoln to Shuttleworth & Ingersoll doesn't look all that promising, and while the digression on the early history of railroads in Iowa is interesting, this is not the place for it. Huon (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the possibility that Christa is a paid editor per this link so everyone should keep in mind our neutral point of view and conflict of interest policies. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intentionally remove the tags. I am still learning. In the post for help I asked how I could get to or see the tags so I could address them. Again I ask... Is there a way for me to get back to the tagged post with out losing the changes I have already made?

It was a work in progress as I learned about sources per the links provided I have updated most if not all of the links back to the firms website with other links. I was merely trying to keep working on this as I had time until I heard back from someone.

I am happy to remove the community portion all together. I was only trying to provide what I thought was being asked of me. Fact on where the attorneys are serving in the community. I appreciate your direction. I will look for a source that explicitly says the firm is known for their community involvement or remove that section all together. There are several sources that I found that talk about the founding attorneys serving for those same organizations hundreds of years ago. Iowa State Bar Association for example.

The railroad cases were the major cases for the attorneys of this firm for many years, that is why I felt is was worth sharing. The individuals I highlighted were the most notable of those who have worked for the firm. A PLC law firm really is just a sum of the parts.

When I first posted this article I posted that I worked for the firm and asked how I could get connected with someone who would be interested in helping me with this article or taking it over. I am not a paid editor. Yes that is my website, but it highlights my work prior to the firm and writing wiki articles wasn't part of my work.

I also asked about conflict of interest prior to even starting this project. I was told writing for my firm was "not a good idea" I asked where I could find someone interested in telling the story. I didn't receive a response. I read in the FAQs and posted in another place it linked me to, but I haven't not heard a thing back.

This system is not very user friendly for a new comer. I appreciate the help and direction I have received thus far. I would appreciate further direction rather than finger pointing a accusations of wrong doing.

I would like to find a way to either hand what I have found off to someone else or continue to work on this with guidance. I think the stories of the firm history are interesting and worth letting. EpiphanyVP (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I make changes to this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Shuttleworth_%26_Ingersoll,_P.L.C. do you see that or do you see it somewhere else? It is in my sandbox. I don't have any links to the firms website anymore. EpiphanyVP (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question on an upload of yours

[edit]
Hello, EpiphanyVP. You have new messages at commons:User talk:EpiphanyVP.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Interwiki talkback}} or {{Itb}} template.

Storkk (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C. (May 20)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Fiddle Faddle 09:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! EpiphanyVP, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C. (May 22)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
JustBerry (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, EpiphanyVP. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Anne Delong (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]
Hi, EpiphanyVP. When you attempted to restore your query at the Teahouse (which had already been archived), you also managed to delete most of the recent queries there. I've restored them, but Anne Delong's response to you was lost as a result; you can see it here, though. In the future, if you wan't to "reactivate" a query that has fallen off the page, it's usually simpler to just post a new question, with perhaps a Wikilink to the earlier, archived question to give responders some context. Deor (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anne Delong I am a newbie and have no idea what I am doing. Hence the desperate need for help! Can you please tell me how do I make a wikilink? I can't even find my post? --EpiphanyVP (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EpiphanyVP. A lot of popular talk pages are archived because otherwise they would be very long and take a long time to load and to find new posts. Usually when this is done, there is a search box on the right hand side of the page. The one at the Teahouse says "Question archived? Go find it!". If you type your user name there, it will show you all of the archive pages that have your username on it. In this case, your question was archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 211. (You can see by the number that we get a lot of questions.) To link to it, just put double square brackets around the page title, like this: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 211]]. Don't worry about having messed up the page. This stuff happens all of the time; we've all done it. The great thing about Wikipedia is that nothing is really lost, as long as it was "saved" in the first place. All the old versions of everything can be found by selecting the "history" tab at the top of each page. If new users didn't have problems now and then, the more experienced editors wouldn't get to show their skill by fixing them up! —Anne Delong (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Anne Delong this is very helpful! --EpiphanyVP (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New article

[edit]

The article is now published and awaiting review. [1] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has passed review.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is good news Keithbob - how can I read it? --EpiphanyVP (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link in my first comment above or do a WP search for Shuttleworth & Ingersoll.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thank you so much for helping me with this project! You are very Kind Keithbob --EpiphanyVP (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Hi, if you would like to upload the company logo, or a picture of the corporate headquarters, these might be suitable additions to the article. You can upload by clicking here and following the instructions. After you've uploaded them, leave a note on my talk page and I'll take a look at them and see which ones might be appropriate for Shuttleworth WP article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keithbob. I have uploaded the images as you suggested. The logo and headquarters photos have been uploaded to the commons area for your review. Thanks again for your help. --EpiphanyVP (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C. concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C., a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, P.L.C.

[edit]

Hello, EpiphanyVP. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Shuttleworth & Ingersoll".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EpiphanyVP&oldid=1147987663"