User talk:CommunityCollegeSupporter

December 2008

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.

You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. Blueboy 96 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You have been unblocked, but you need to check in at CHU to have your username changed. seicer | talk | contribs 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: seicer | talk | contribs 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to New User talk page request: feedback on your draft article

At the present time your user ID is "Fccc wiki" which suggests you are connected with the foundation that is the subject of the article. I see this is already being addressed on your talk page, and I presume you are going to change your name but haven't done so. There may also be a problem with the word "wiki" in your name, which could suggest you have some official connection with the Wikipedia foundation. Wikipedia discourages individuals and organizations from writing about themselves, but would allow you to request that someone else write an article, and to discuss the article on its talk page. For more information about this, see WP:COI.

Regarding your draft article: The main content (in paragraphs) doesn't appear to have NPOV problems. But it could do with a stronger demonstration of notability in the lead section. (Demonstation of notability is a requirement, see WP:N.) There is some information in the later section that could be added to the lead, stating what the foundation has actually accomplished, to demonstrate its importance, i.e. "the foundation manages a scholarship fund that has received the largest donation to a public two-year college system in US history", and perhaps mention how much money it has distributed in total. (By the way, is "largest donation to a ... two-year ... system" really notable? Have there been larger donations made to one-year or other systems? Has this been narrowly worded to make it appear more important than it really is?)

I see some of this info is already in the infobox at right. The infobox should be a summary of information that is already in the body of the article, not as a substitute for including that info in paragraphs.

The list of "program areas" does not appear to be helpful, being a long list with no contextual explanation. If it's just a copy of information available at the website, you may want to refer to the external links you've already put in the article, and take this section out. If it were to stay, it should be near the bottom of the article, after the paragraph formatted sections.

There are far too many external links in the article, and there is no need to have multiple sections for them. "News clips" should only be used when they are citations, and use the citation format so they appear in the reflist. The news clips appear to be "puff pieces" which take away from the neutrality of the article. Only one link to the foundation is needed, and I'm not sure of the relevance of the other links. I added a "references" section at the bottom, but just noticed you already have one among the various external links section, and gave it an unusual title. It should be at the bottom, with the section title "References".

To answer your question about how many references to include to demonstrate one point: one is usually fine. Multiples are only used for controversial claims where more back-up is required, or when the sources cover different parts of what is being stated, or cover it from various angles.

Getting back the the bigger problem of the article apparently being written as an "official" creation by the foundation itself, it might be better to make the article very short, giving only a few basic facts and a link to the website (and not all the other sites in the draft). This would make it a "stub" article. Other editors could expand the article later if there are newsworthy developments. You have to realize that you will not "own" the article, and if there are negative things about your foundation (i.e. a scandal breaks out) you would not be able to keep it out of the article. This is in line with the NPOV policy, and the need for articles to be encyclopedic, and not advertising.

Hope this is helpful. Sorry, I can't help further with implementing the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]