In relation to NPOV tag added to E. Jerome McCarthy, I would like to quote from WP policies

"WP:Neutral point of view. Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." BronHiggs (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BronHiggs: . Thank you I am quite aware of the policies. Possibly I looked upon your contributions at that article with a more critical eye after seeing and removing this [1] clearly promotional edit you made elsewhere. We have a large problem here with promotional editing by PR firms and the like. While, after looking through some more of your edits and interactions I do not think that is the likely case with you, the overall tone of the article is often more hagiographical than biographical. He seems to indeed have made "great contributions" and the facts of his career and accomplishments demonstrate that quite clearly without the need to bang the reader over the head.

Read through the article again and compare it to the content and tone you would expect in Britannica, not a book forward. If you still disagree with the tag remove it, I will not reinstate it. Jbh^Talk 18:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost impossible to strike a balance that will satisfy all editors all the time. The bio on McCarthy was in danger of being removed because it did not meet the criteria for "notability" of academics. I cut my teeth on McCarthy's texts as a marketing student back in the 1970s, so I knew of his reputation and made a decision that it would be a shame to let the article slip into oblivion. So, I read the notability guidelines and set about adding some new content, with references, that would highlight his contribution to the discipline. Now apparently the article is "hagiographical" and banging "reader over the head".

I think I need to give Wikipedia away. There are far too many inconsistencies in editing decisions, policies and guidelines. BronHiggs (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BronHiggs: I would encourage you to stick with it. Looking through your other contributions it looks like you really have a lot to offer. It can be very frustrating for subject matter experts to edit in their area of expertise and it is often better to spend a while in other subject areas to learn how things work here. That way the inconsistencies and arcana of editing here are less personally frustrating. I, for one, never edit significantly in my primary of expertise - I would rapidly be driven to banging on my keyboard.

Wikipedia will always be inconsistent because there are thousands of editors with varying levels of knowledge both about subject matter, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the unwritten institutional knowledge of how things are done. There is no way around that. Jbh^Talk 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: That is why I said read it like it was going to be an Encyclopedia Britannica article. If it passes that test chances are the consensus will be it is OK. Jbh^Talk 19:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @BronHiggs: I saw your comment [2] (I was watching that user's page for another reason) where you described my comments to you as "nasty". It is hard to communicate tone in a text only conversation and I apologize unreservedly if anything I said came across as nasty, that was not my intention. A couple comments you made there also show me that I failed to adequately communicate with you:

a) "one person informed me that subject matter experts should not edit in their area" - please note above I said "It can be very frustrating for subject matter experts to edit in their area of expertise" this is because Wikipedia has content policies and a writing style which is foreign to other disciplines - it is much closer to writing a high school book report than an academic or professional paper. Opinions, analysis and "assumed knowledge" are not allowed due a policy disallowing original research and the policy of verifibility requires every statement to be able to be traced to a reliable source. Not every statement need have a citation, but when you are writing a Wikipedia article you need to, at least to yourself, be able to say "I can back this statement from this source". For some, even worse than these, is that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, your text may be removed or challenged or the wording you spent time crafting will be changed for some arcane Wikipedia specific reason that seemingly makes no sense. No professional or expert would be used to that and most viscerally hate it. I stand by my statement that it is less emotionally stressful to learn how editing here works in an area in which you have some interest but, unlike your area of professional expertise, little emotional investment.

b) "these people are very unreasonable - and once they decide to delete they won't back down." I am not sure where that came from but if it is from our interactions please note that above I said to read through the article to see if you thought it had an appropriately encyclopedic tone and if you did to remove the tag and I would not contest it. If it has to do with the Category killers you are correct, the edit was unsourced and promotional. Note that your series of edits [3] removing the other unsourced examples was not objected to by me, any of the recent changes patrollers nor any of the editors who watch that page.

Learning to deal with the editing environment here is very difficult, more so for subject matter experts for the reasons I pointed out above. I hope you choose to stick with editing Wikipedia through the rough patches. You seem to have a great deal of expertise and I thank you for being willing to contribute some of that expertise to this project. Jbh^Talk 14:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very curious about the logic behind editing decisions.

You tell me that you removed a description of the Australian firm, Officeworks, from the page on Category killers because it was "clearly promotional" yet you left behind more than half a dozen retailers that include content which could readily be construed as "promotional" but remain totally unsourced. The examples are Toys 'R Us; Google, Petsmart, E-Bay, Amazon, Circuit City, CarMax (incidentally all US outfits) and others - yet you chose to delete the only non-US example on the page. This doesn't seem like very balanced editing.

The content on Officeworks is factual and verifiable. The source, Officeworks website, is in my view the best place to obtain a list of product categories on offer. I am not in any way associated with this firm - but for a variety of reasons, I did want to include an Australian example in the list. (I could just as easily have listed our hardware giant, Bunnings and it would have included comparable content with similar sources. I have no idea why I settled on Officeworks for this example. BronHiggs (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only really cares about what independant reliable sources has to say about a topic. What you would need is a good source which defines OfficeWOrks as a "Category Killer", not your own assessment it is one. Also, a good rule of thumb is if something is written like a PR flack or press agent for the firm wrote it or if it sounds like a blurb you would find in a trade publication etc it is not acceptable for Wikipedia.

It is possible the entire article category killer or much of its content is not appropriate. I would need to spend more time going through it and the sources but I do not need to do that to your edit was not appropriate. The wording was highly promotional and the sources were answers.com which was both unreachable and not a reliable source, and the OfficeWorks home page which does not support anything - it is just a home page. Just because one thing is wrong does not mean something else should be as well. The Wikipedia term for that argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Whether the example was non-US or not is immaterial and, frankly, is the kind of argument I often see from PR people trying to push their edit into Wikipedia.

From your second paragraph I can tell you either have not read the reliable source guidelines or not internalized them. Please pay particular attention to primary vs secondary sources. You should also carefully read the neutral point of view policy.

If you want your edit to stand it is pretty simple - write in a neutral tone, eschewing promotional language, and provide reliable sources which support the specific statement or claim being made. You should also pay attention to WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE which addresses whether a claim is significant enough to be included in an article. Jbh^Talk 19:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. Yes I have read the guidelines on reliability. In particular, I note the follwing:

• "Context matters: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content".
• "Primary sources... can be both reliable and useful in certain situations" (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources) and, elsewhere WP notes that reliable sources are required for content that is likely to be "controversial" And, what could be a more reliable source than a retailer's website (i.e. a primary source) for a simple list of the products offered for sale? It is hardly a controversial claim, requiring independent evidence.

In any case, if you want to delete the ONLY non-US example on the Category Killer page, so be it. I am not about to insert it back again. Australian students who rely on Wikipedia to prepare their essays and reports will just have to do a bit more headwork to locate relevant local examples to illustrate their writing. BronHiggs (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, please read this brief guide on how to edit talk pages so I do not have to keep reformatting your text and it can be followed both by me and others. Second, a laundry list of products is not encyclopedic content. In general only things which have been commented on by third party reliable sources are considered significant. That an office supply store sells office supplies is pure marketing and reads as such. Third, I really do not care where the company is from, what matters is whether an independent reliable source talks about it as a "category killer" and that its addition to the article not look like an advert.

Until you get the hang of sourcing and NPOV here I would suggest that you limit yourself to what independent, third party reliable sources which have strong editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy have to say about a topic and phrase it like you are writing copy for Britannica. Jbh^Talk 20:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @BronHiggs: Per above [4], yeah I was a bit over harsh here, sorry. Jbh^Talk 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for taking the time to reconsider your comments and I accept your apology.

I keep hearing, not just from you, but also from others, that Wikipedia ONLY cares about reliable, independent, third party sources for every statement. Apparently this is a widespread interpretation amongst Wikipedians, but it is not consistent with WP's formal, written policies and guidelines. It seems that "custom and practice" has come to take precedence over formal policies. The reality is that this makes it almost impossible for newcomers to develop acceptable material - because by definition, newcomers do not have sufficient experience or insight to know what customs and practices are in play and when they misjudge the prevailing mood, they cannot turn to the policies for guidance or support.

There are so many problems with a number of the Marketing pages. I would have liked to fix them. I have the knowledge, experience and enthusiasm to do so. But I am wasting my time when content is deleted/ challenged almost as soon as it is added. Wikipedia has traditionally operated on an incremental improvement approach - but new content does not get much of a chance to undergo improvements under the prevailing 'deletionist' mentality that seems to pervade the Wiki environment.

Wikipedia is what it is. And, if the majority have decided that new content is to be challenged or deleted wherever possible, then so be it! The downside of this approach is that it scares away potential new editors and consumes enormous amount of time resources that could arguably be better spent actually fixing up pages with substantive and structural problems.

(Incidentally the article on Category killers is a good case in point - as it suffers from definitional problems - the current definition is inaccurate and potentially misleading because it omits the key criterion for a category killer. For the record, the key to being classified as a category killer is that an outlet must specialise in a given category of goods or services e.g. a hardware store might not just sell tools and timber, but might also extend the offerings to include outdoor furniture, Do-It-Yourself Kitchen/ Bathroom Cabinetry, gardening supplies, barbecues etc and some even offer classes/ seminars for the home handyman. Category killers have the potential to become dominant in the market because they are effectively one stop shops and with volume purchasing power, they are able to undercut the prices of small, independent market players. BUT, being dominant is not an essential criterion for a category killer in the way that the current definition implies). You will note that I have not sourced a relevant definition for my understanding of category killer, so feel free to ignore these comments if you wish.)

Anyway, I have promised myself that I will not waste more time responding to challenges. I have a couple of unfinished WP tasks that I intend to wrap up over the next few days, and then I will be leaving Wikipedia alone. The last three weeks have shown me that I am temperamentally unsuited to the uncertainties and inconsistencies of the Wikipedia environment.

BronHiggs (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the correct title to the Southern Networks article. I made a modification to the Southern Networks page and added the Southern Networks Ltd. page where the content was copied to. I hope this was appropriate, as I just wanted to correct it, but I couldn't change the title of the original page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shull12345 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shull12345: Wikipedia naming policy typically leaves off Ltd, Inc, SA etc. Also the page you created was a copy/paste which would loose the edit history of the other article which is required for copyright attribution. I have changed the page you created into a WP:REDIRECT. Jbh^Talk 11:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just a thought, it looks to me as if E. Jerome McCarthy may qualify as a Did you know? for BronHiggs. Perhaps something like:

"Did you know... that E. Jerome McCarthy was deemed by the Oxford Dictionary of Marketing to be "pivotal figure in the development of marketing thinking"^[1] beginning with his 1960 textbook, Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach that introduced his 4 Ps marketing mix?

What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Yes, I think he would be good DYK for BronHiggs. May I suggest;

• "Did you know... that E. Jerome McCarthy is considered a "pivotal figure in the development of marketing thinking" by the Oxford Dictionary of Marketing for introducing the 4 Ps of marketing in his 1960 textbook, Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach".

I don't know the rules for DYK hooks, can they be footnoted? Also, great job on fixing and expanding the article. Jbh^Talk 21:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that looks great! I don't remember either, I thought since it was a claim, I'd throw the reference in there and let the DYK process resolve it. I found a 4Ps image (that I added to the article) that could be used as the image there.--CaroleHenson (talk)

Ok, Jbh and BronHiggs, it's posted Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on October 30.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Jbh^Talk 21:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Thanks Carole, You have been marvellous.

It's my pleasure. The cool part of the process, aside from getting a DYK for you, is that other editors come in and fine tune the article even more. And, then, when it's accepted it will get visibility on the main page. Hanging-in-there pays off!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that Houda Darwish looks in every way like a speedy candidate. Nevertheless I'd like to see if she can be salvaged, so I've removed the speedy tag. I'm hoping the Africa Destubathon will adopt her. We'll see. If there's nomovement after a week or so then she can be re-speedied or prodded. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: OK but please remember that the whole point of a speedy is to get rid of non-policy compliant articles and this is a BLP. If you could put something in the article that just says who she is and what she did ie something that shows there is a remote chance it can be improved it would help a lot. Right now all I see are social media pages, nothing that shows me she may pass GNG or AUTHOR. Her ar.wiki page [5] does not help. It seems to be a first person bio based on what I gleen from Gtranslate. The picture also looks like it is copyvio from [6]. Jbh^Talk 00:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your indulgence; I recognise I'm on very thin ice. I've tweaked it slightly. My logic - to the extent I have such - is 1. probably over-supportive of women biographies given the large gender imbalance on wikipedia 2. probably over-supportive of non-western biogs, and especially biogs posted by (probable) non-English speakers and 3. most RS for this person, if there are such, are likely to be arabic language rather than English. The image on the website you point to is a derivative of the one posted to the commons; I presume whoever was responsible for the page you point to might well be responsible for the article which arrived here.

I've done what I can; I'll not hold it against you if in your judgement it should get the chop. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hold off AfD for a while to give the article a chance. The page the image search returned seems to be some awards page - The Karta Arabic Fiction Awards. I do not know if that is a notable award though. The only person who I can think of who may be able to shed some light on her is;

@Huldra: Sorry for the ping out of the blue. Do you know anything of this author? Do you think the article may be salvageable? Thank you.

Jbh^Talk 00:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard off her (which does´t mean anything: I know nothing about Algerian writers.) However, info should possibly be translated from the ar.wp-article? (For anyone who does not rely on translate.google...) I see her one book (Amour en Quete Sa Nation) is available on fr.amazon, which is basically her one point of notability. If so, my 2 cents: not a speedy. (I don´t know the publisher, though: is it one of the self-publishers?? If so, I might change my mind... ) Huldra (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look. It looks like the publisher is probably a vanity publisher based on [7] and their services menu [8].

The language barrier is definitly a problem for assessing notability in these situations. The Arabic wiki page seems to have a lot of similarities with the Karta award bio so I am not sure it is not part of some promo push, but I am restricted to what Google spits out so it could just be the bad translation. Anyway, thank you again. Jbh^Talk 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why it sounds promotional? I have research other architects wikipedia pages and used exactly the same format. So why have their pages not been deleted? I'm really confused so would appreciate some clarification. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archilover (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Archilover: the article has been deleted so I can not see it to give you any specifics. However both I and the deleting administrator would have had to find it overly promotional for it to have been deleted. Articles are judged against Wikipedia's content guidelines not against each other. I would suggest you pay particular attention to the requirement that articles be written from a neutral point of view using reliable sources. Those sources must also be independant from the article subject to demonstrate that, in this case, it passes the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Jbh^Talk 15:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Archilover: you can also ask the admin who deleted the article, because he can still read it. It was User:Bgwhite. Bishonen | talk 06:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, "name chagrin" is good![9] Hope it wasn't merely your spellchecker having trouble with "name change"? Bishonen | talk 06:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I have to give credit to my autocorrect. It has an irrepressible and rather droll sense of humor :) Jbh^Talk 15:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me why this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer is still flagged?

Thanks

Kc2290 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kc2290[reply]

@Kc2290: Looking at it briefly I would say it is because it looks to be cited almost entirely to her own writings rather than to independant reliable sources. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require significant coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of an article subject. What this means is a source must be published by a third party with a solid reputation for fact checking and accuracy. We need this to be able to verify the information in an article. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources.

Also, Wikipedia is not for promotion of a subject or their views. The article spends much more space discussing what she says rather than what others are saying about her. Jbh^Talk 19:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Thanks. I'm going to make the changes needed to get the flag removed. Kc2290 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)kc2290[reply]

Can someone please remove the flag from this page. I've made the necessary corrections.

Thanks

Kc2290 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kc2290[reply]

Why hasn't the flag template been removed from this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilana_Mercer ?

If someone knows how, I ask that you please do so.

Thanks Kc2290 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)kc2290[reply]

@Kc2290: from what I can see the article needs considerable work before those tags can be removed. In particular I would suggest removing most of the Views sections which are only attributed to her works. What Wikipedia is typically interested in is what other people say in independent reliable sources about an article's subject.

Several editors have recently done some improvements and they would be in a better position to answer your questions. Also, there is the WP:TEAHOUSE where there are experienced editors who work with new users. However, your best course of action is to discuss the issue on the article talk page - Talk:Iliana Mercer - where you can ask editors who are familiar with and involved in editing the article. You may also want to ask the editor who placed the tags [10], Volunteer Marek, about them. Jbh^Talk 00:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, could you please check this over for me. Correct it, edit as you wish, or leave a note here. Tnx for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at [11]. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 15:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Long time no see. Can you help me expand the lede? I boldly added his role in Taxi but am still uncertain about summarizing other less notable roles. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]