User talk:JaneSmith23
Contested deletion of Avocet Mining
[edit]This page should not be speedily deleted because... amending relevant copy to ensure it abides by copyright guidelines --JaneSmith23 (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you please advise on how I can ensure I don't impinge copyright or wiki guidelines on content? I am an independent contributor and have sourced all content from reputable sources and publications, which were all appropriately referenced. Any help you can offer would be appreciated. Jane # JaneSmith23 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- A few points to note: (a) any material added should be additional to material that is already there (it has already been properly sourced) (b) any new material should also be properly sourced (i.e. from independent sources as required by WP:SOURCE) (c) any material which presents the company in a solely positive light will be removed per WP:ADVERT and could lead to the artiucle being deleted as nearly happened here (d) any material addded should be in proper prose as required by WP:PROSE (lists of dates and acquisitions is not proper prose). I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you that helps. I will amend this. Could you please elaborate on point(b)? Does this include media pieces? JaneSmith23 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was really disappointed to see that you had again deleted the material that had already existed and substituted material that was not compliant. Especially when I had gone to some trouble to help you. You will note that the article nearly got deleted because of what you had done. The history section that you inserted was clearly in list form rather than flowing prose and very few of the lines were sourced let alone independently sourced. As regards (b) media sources would indeed normally be acceptable. Please read and observe wiki policies before editing further. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you have done a great job of it now. Well done. Dormskirk (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was really disappointed to see that you had again deleted the material that had already existed and substituted material that was not compliant. Especially when I had gone to some trouble to help you. You will note that the article nearly got deleted because of what you had done. The history section that you inserted was clearly in list form rather than flowing prose and very few of the lines were sourced let alone independently sourced. As regards (b) media sources would indeed normally be acceptable. Please read and observe wiki policies before editing further. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)