User talk:CSYguy

A tag has been placed on Caribbean sailing yachts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Caribbean sailing yachts and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Caribbean sailing yachts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bsadowski1 (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could do a version of the article that's considerably less laudatory in tone? It's the tone that's the problem, as well as a dependence on what appears to be original research. I'm willing to move the content to a sandbox in your users[pace for you to work on. Acroterion _(talk) 02:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia - the owners group for CSY sailboats (built in the 1980s) have recently moved their website and are in the process of accumulating the information on CSY boats that were built in the 1970s and 1980s. I thought Wikipedia would be a good place to accumulate this information as well as allowing other owners to contribute any information they might have about these boats. Also, most of the information is from other owner's websites or from the information supplied by the company before they went out of business in the early 1980s.

I am not sure what you mean by decreasing the laudatory tone of the article? There are some known problems about these boats. Would you like me to include these problems? Let me know how you recommend I should proceed. I would like the owners to consolidate the information they have on this boat.

Well, it does have an advertising-like tone and and not so much as an encyclopedia article. We're not looking for "dull", of course, but an avoidance of opinion and a strict focus on verifiable fact is what we're looking for. Scholarly would be the best word. References from third-party publications known for fact-checking (I know that's hard in this case, but that's the general target). How about I put it in a sandbox at User:CSYguy/sandbox for you to work on? I don't think the deleting admin will mind. Acroterion _(talk) 03:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with putting it into the sandbox if you think that will help. I will read through the posting again to see how I can tone it down somewhat. Perhaps if I start it off with a statement about how CSY went out of business in 1980 in the first paragraph. How will I know when it is ready to come out of the sandbox?

Yes, you should work on writing an appropriate lede that summarizes the content and scale back adjectives and evaluations of the qualities of the line. I'd be happy to offer comments if you let me know when you think it's ready, as long as you're willing to be patient. I have quite a bit going on in Real Life and have limited time for WP right now. Other editors, including Blanchardb and Dank, may be willing to help (they'll have to speak for themselves). Acroterion _(talk) 03:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dank seems to be offline, I've gone ahead and dropped the article into the sandbox. My assessment is that it reads less like advertising and more like marketing, which is equally frowned upon. Take a look at WP:YFA, and if you don't mind, I'll have a go at a copyedit in the next couple of days when I get a chance. This is an underrepresented area in Wikipedia, and I'm happy to help out. Keep in mind that there's no hurry. Acroterion _(talk) 03:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any help would be greatly appreciated. There is a group of ~ 100 people that would like to have a central repostory of information on this boat. Right now it is scattered across the web and everyone has to hunt and pick to get the information. I feel confident that the owners of the boat / users of the website (lots of non owners interested in the boat) would love to have a place to intelligently post the information.

Keep in mind that everything on Wikipedia should befrom a reliable source, which means that you may have to pick and choose information. Blogs, personal opinion pieces and so forth are not suitable sources. Writing about things people know about from personal experience isn't really acceptable either, expect to the extent that it informs their writing as they write about sourced material. Acroterion _(talk) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look a little later this evening when I have some time. Anybody can edit a page in your sandbox, so you can point them there if they're interested. Acroterion _(talk) 00:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the first section, partly to comply with the manual of style for layout and lede, and partly to reduce the use of adjectives and informal construction, which make the article read like a magazine article rather than an encyclopedia article. In general, a more formal tone is expected, rather than the conversational, evaluative tone appropriate for a magazine. Imagine what you'd see in Britannica, if they had such an article - that's what's expected here too. Acroterion _(talk) 03:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several edits the this piece and it appears to me to be more in the style that is needed for Wikipedia. I noticed a little concern about this being a marketing piece for the company that took over when CSY went out of business. This company subsequently went out of business as well. I have added this to the entry to clarify matters.

I'll have a look at it when I get a few minutes. Thanks for letting me know. Acroterion _(talk) 18:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's almost ready to go live now. The article needs better referencing, but the laudatory language that made me tag the original article as promotional is almost all gone. Remember that we are not seeking perfection on the first try, but there are some things that we just don't want, one of them being our articles to be by themselves judgments of value of their subjects (see WP:NPOV). However, since we are talking here about a company that has been out of business for some time, you might find us more lenient about the laudatory language (which was quite blatant on your first try). Just find a reliable source or two to establish the company's notability, and I think the article will be a keeper. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more references. This was harder than expected. I think it is because the manufacturer has been out of business for approximately 25 years. Most of the references I could find were from owners; however, I was able to find one publication (book) that references the CSY boats and their manufacture.

What does everyone think? Is this ready to be published? Let me know.

I've done some formatting and tightening of the language - removing first and second person and editorial comments. You might want to put those on the talk page. I think it can be placed in article space now. It's referenced, and while not perfect, it's a good basic introductory article. Some pictures would be nice (free-content only, though). Acroterion _(talk) 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the images you're using. Commons accepts only free content, and the drawing you've uploaded are clearly not free images - even if the copyright holder's out of business. The image will probably be deleted as improperly licensed. Do you have any photographs that you've taken that could be used? Acroterion _(talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I published the page on Wikipedia - I am holding my breath to see if it sticks.

Are photos of the pages acceptable? All of the images are actually photographed from materials from the 1970s and 1980s. I could find pictures of the actual boats but I really like the line drawings.

In general, no - a photograph of a copyrighted page is a copy of copyrighted material. Speaking as an architect, I really like line drawings too, but it'll be hard to find something that meets free-content criteria. Acroterion _(talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

no reliable sources, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cellemetry Data Services and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cellemetry Data Services, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CSYguy! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your username seems inappropriate at Wikipedia as it represents Caribbean Sailing Yachts, Limited (for which you tried to make a Wikipedia page).

There exists a Wikipedia:Username policy which clearly states that user names which represent the name of a company are not allowed (see the WP:CORPNAME section of the policy). That can also be a specific case of the implied share use of an account, which also is prohibited (see WP:ISU).

As such, your account may get blocked from further editing in Wikipedia. Please see the policy section on Changing your username to avoid such problem.

I hope you can also benefit from reading Wikipedia guidances and rules on:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

with the latter expaded on

• identifying Wikipedia:Reliable sources and
• general use of them: Help:Referencing for beginners.

--CiaPan (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please provide WP:THREE sources that show this is a notable company

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cellemetry Data Services and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cellemetry Data Services, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs to be organized better to explain how it is a company or a technology. Also need to provide the top WP:THREE sources here so we can review those. You can list the ones on my talk page if those are the strongest ones, as long as they aren't primary (by the company founders / researchers).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cellemetry Data Services and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cellemetry Data Services, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cellemetry Data Services, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]