User talk:Jks825

Welcome!

Hello, Jks825, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Stax Inc. (August 25)

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax Inc..
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Jks825, 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!

Message to Jackmcbarn: Your communication indicates that I should respond to you on my own Talk page. I appreciate the time you spent reviewing my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax Inc. Obviously, I'm disappointed, and need some clarification if I am to address the issues. There appear to be two:

You said it reads like an advertisement and needs to be written from a neutral point of view. I took great pains to write it from a neutral, factual point of view with no qualitative or promotional language. Would you mind giving me some examples of language that reads like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic entry? I'm trying to do this right, so any guidance you could provide on what to avoid would be appreciated.

The other comment is that we need to refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I deliberately loaded the article with a number of external citations. Reference numbers 2 through 5 are all external, independent publications using their own reporting to cite Stax for some accomplishments. Although most of the rest are articles written by Stax people, they were published in leading business publications (e.g., Forbes, Fortune, and CNNMoney) and trade journals solely because the editors believed that the pieces contained ideas worth sharing with their readers--and that Stax as an entity was qualified to comment on the issues. These are not "placed" promotional pieces; the publications chose to publish them on their own merits.

Again, I'm trying to do this by the rules, and would welcome more specific clarification on where the article ran afoul. Thanks. Jks825 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Services section except for the last two sentences reads too much like an advertisement, as does the list in the Media section. Also, if articles were written by Stax, they're bad for sourcing the Stax article, even if someone else did choose to publish them. I notice that some of the articles are hosted on Stax.com instead of where they were originally published. You should link to the original source of these documents. Also, "Checking Under The Hood In Congress", "Why health care 'Cadillacs' shouldn't be touched", and "Killing the Electric Car ... Again!", "Mobile Payments: How Much Should I Care, and When?" appear to be written by employees of Stax, but otherwise have no connection to Stax. They're fine as references the way you have them, but they don't assert notability. Which references do assert notability? Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jackmcbarn, for the further guidance. The list in the Services section should be fairly easy to fix with a more general text statement. The article the probably best represents "notability" in the way Wikipedia describes it the one in Reuters Buyouts (http://www.stax.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/rafi_profiled_buyout.pdf), which is a broad profile of the firm and its CEO written by a staff reporter of this Thomson Reuters-owned publication. Unfortunately, the original version resides on paid-subscription site that is not accessible to nonsubscribers (that, along with the fact that sites may take articles down--is the main reason some of the articles are hosted PDFs rather than direct links). So I guess the first question is whether this article would satisfy the requirements for notability and then, is there is a way to use the PDF if the original article isn't available for linking? I understand why Wikipedia can't just take somebody's word for it, but Stax is a firm that's nearly 20 years old serving some of the world's largest companies, so there has to be a way to prove notability. (This probably isn't relevant for these purposes, but Buyouts article mentions that CEO Rafi Musher is a member of the Young Professionals Organization, which his its own minimum requirements in terms of a company's employees, sales volume, and value; you have to prove you're head of a substantial enterprise before they let you in. http://www.ypo.org/join-ypo/) I'd appreciate any suggestions.

Finally, in terms of the other articles, for a business services firm like Stax, the knowledge of its people is the primary reason that customers hire them. It is fairly typical for individuals to write "thought leadership" articles based on new ideas developed in the course of their work. Their names typically go on the articles because they lead the relevant business--they're the "face of the franchise," so to speak. The insights are meant to represent the type of knowledge Stax brings to its clients, so they truly do represent the firm. Instead of the present format, would it be possible to include a list of these "Thought Leadership" with the full article titles, authors, and publications within the body?

Once again, thank you for your help. Jks825 (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the articles on your site that are normally behind a paywall is not allowed per WP:LINKVIO. To answer your question, an article written by an employee of a company is never sufficient to establish notability of the company. You should try to find other articles that talk about the articles Stax has written. That would help assert notability. Also, a list of publications would probably not be a good thing to include as this article, as that could make it seem even more promotional. Go ahead and make the changes I've described, and anything else you want to, then resubmit it and I'll take another look at it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jackmcbarn. Good deal. I'll take another shot and run it by you. FYI, it may be irrelevant at this point, but for the record: the links to articles behind pay walls I included were not violating copyrights. If you're the subject or author of an article, publications will typically give you a courtesy link that bypasses the pay wall for that particular article, or they sometimes will give you a PDF of the article for you to host on your own site. Since you're providing them the content, they do this so you can share the pieces with other to show your work. In some cases there may be a fee involved, but usually not. That was the case with the PDFs hosted on the Stax site. Thanks.Jks825 (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jackmcbarn. I pared back the article considerably, hopefully eliminating the issues you raised, and just resubmitted it. Hopefully this will do the trick. Thanks for your attention. Jks825 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stax Inc. (September 25)

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax Inc..
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Anup Mehra ^✈ 14:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anupmehra. On Sep 25, you declined my Article for Creation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Stax_Inc. The explanation given was, "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." I had received a similar comment on an earlier draft from jackmcbarn, and had reworked the article to cite reportorial mentions of the company in several external sources, including the Wall Street Journal. Could you give me a little more information why this doesn't qualify as "verifiable"? Thanks. Jks825 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jks825:It requires some more references to verify the content of the submission. Such as, the "History" section is totally unsourced. Either delete or provide source. And some more references in the "Services" section. And, It might be argued that the submission is not written in compliance with Wikipedia neutral point of view. Fix these issues before your re-submit again. You can read more, Wikipedia Verifiability, Wikipedia Reliable source, Wikipedia Reliable source examples & How to write a better article. Anup Mehra ^✈ 08:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax Inc. concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax Inc., 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) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax Inc.

Hello Jks825. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Stax Inc.".

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, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stax Inc.}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]