Talk:ASCII Group

Untitled

That sounds good. Let me know your suggestions, so I can finish the page and get it ready for the formal wikipedia page.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CW221 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

Ok, great job so far, thanks for all your hard work. I don't think it's ready for the mainspace yet though. Here's some thoughts for improvement:

• The most important thing is to have sufficient references. Let's get this article to the point where it has a reference for each fact. If a fact hasn't received mention in any published source, we shouldn't mention it here either. That's a good way to make sure every fact is notable (i.e. been mentioned in reliable sources) and verifiable.
• Some of the references may not be that reliable, it looks like they're just websites. Reliable sources are those that have editorial review, like newspapers or books. It's not as sure that something published on a random website is necessarily going to be accurate. If there aren't sufficient reliable sources that mention the group the article will likely be deleted if it's moved to the mainspace without them.
• The criteria for mention in reliable sources is that it should be nontrivial coverage, so a brief mention may not cut it as far as having received mention in the press. So a company's website saying the ASCII Group gave that company an award in passing might not count. However, if the Group receives a sentence or two in a reliable source, that can definitely be used to source the facts in those sentences, which strengthens the article's claim to verifiability. But the group needs to have nontrivial mentions in at least a few reliable sources to be considered notable.
• It's important for articles to have a WP:neutral tone, I'm concerned that parts of this article sound too glowing, like an advertisement. e.g. ...provides technology tools, products and services to assist... sounds kind of like a corporate ad to me. Maybe if we just have concrete examples of services etc. they provide it will sound more factual.
• <ref> </ref> tags go after the fact that they are being used for: "the solar system has nine planets."

That's all I got for now, I gotta run again, but should be back later tonight. Peace, delldot ∇. 01:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow up to Suggestions

Thanks for the suggestions! I read through the suggestions thoroughly and made the corrections to the UserPage. The sources are independent, verifiable, and reliable. They come from major computer industry publications/magazines such as, Channel Partners Online, Channelpro Network, as well as the major publication BusinessWeek. Another source comes from the Times Union newspaper, which is the major newspaper/publication for a large portion of upstate New York, including Albany, Troy, and Saratoga. I made sure to delete any promotional information, and made the article completely neutral. Furthermore, I added an additional reference, and referenced as much of the article as I possibly could.

Hopefully, it is ready to be up and running on the main site now?

Let me know. Cheers, CW221 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, those sources sound great, I haven't looked at them yet but that sounds like exactly the kind of thing we need. I removed a sentence that still violated copyright because it was copied directly from a website. Sorry, even copying a single sentence is too much. It's fine to use the information though, as long as it is in your own words. Are you certain there is no other wording in the article that was copied from somewhere? If so, we'll need to reword it, we're not able to have that even in the userspace. Let's go back over each sentence and make sure that's done before proceeding with formatting and everything. Peace, delldot ∇. 04:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's fine that you removed that sentence. I went through every other sentence in the article, and it's all in my own words. Nothing else is copied directly from the sources.

It looks like the content is finished, what else should be done with formatting?

Let me know.

Best, CW221 (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the formatting, unless you have objections? Or whatever you think works best, I'm all ears..

CW221 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great. The next thing I want to make sure of is that we have enough references from reliable sources that give the subject a substantial mention. The references I looked at looked like they just give it a passing mention. The Business Week is a great source, but it looks like this mention is just some kind of listing, not really part of an article. (Actually I'm not sure if that would be accepted or not if this came to a deletion discussion, but let's back it up with more sources so we don't have to find out). Let me look at the rest of the references and see what I think. . As I mentioned, I think every fact in the article should be referenced to a reliable source--we can put a <ref> </ref> tag with that source right after each fact in the article. Peace, delldot ∇. 06:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

More copyright violations

I found another example of a sentence copied from another site and have removed it. Are you absolutely sure there is no more copyright infringing material here? If there is it needs to be removed right away. There are some sentences that are unchanged from the article I deleted. Did you write these yourself? Please check again. Peace, delldot ∇. 06:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I did write these myself... Honestly, I am trying my best here, I'm not sure what else to do. The sentence on success summits was completely my own words, and I don't understand why you deleted it??

Oh, ok, that may have been a mistake about the summits one. I took out the two sentences about why the summits were great because they sounded to glowing, too much like an advertisement. It didn't seem like they offered concrete info either. I made this edit because I found this exact wording on the group's website. Even if you wrote their site, we'd need to get permission from the copyright owner to use it, which would be way too hard for a couple sentences. Also, the tone needs to be neutral, and this sounds too much like advertising. It should just be reworded or taken out. I see you're adding refs where I tagged, that's great. Peace, delldot ∇. 07:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for all the help! I just finished revising the page and adding references. I made sure everything is neutral and written in my own words. Let me know if there is anything else, so I can get this back up!

I also changed some of the wording of the Success Summit sentences to make it more neutral as well.

Hopefully it's ready to go.

CW221 (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have just found another instance of a copyright violation, from here. It has been removed. delldot ∇. 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been with an editor working beside me... What I typed he said was not in violation of copyright. It was re-worded from original text. Obviously, some of the facts were taken from the article, but I still don't know why you think it should have been removed?

I guess that fine that you removed it. Still don't know why it was in violation, when It was worded differently?

Anyway, we are trying to get it back on the web to the original Wikipedia site as soon as possible.

My editor said, he has never seen such stringent criteria on Wikipedia, I guess it has changed.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

CW221 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you still there? Or should we work on this another time.

Thanks, CW221 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well, I've spent a good deal of time on this, and I think I'm going to take a step back from it now. I feel like I've directed you to as much info as you need to understand what an article needs in order not to be deleted:

• Multiple, reliable sources with editorial oversight
• substantial (not casual or trivial) mention of the company in those sources
• A reference for each fact in the article
• A neutral tone that does not sound too praising or like advertising.

In my judgement this article never had enough of these things and has not been changed enough to have them now. I feel like the changes you have been saying you've been making have been too minor to really address these issues. For example the sentences I had taken out about the success summits were essentially the same when you replaced them. I'm not trying to be an ogre here, I'm just trying to let you know what the Wikipedia community is going to say if it comes to a discussion about deletion. I think the article is not ready to be moved to the mainspace, and if more substantial mentions in reliable sources can't be found I doubt the topic is even notable enough to merit an article here. Additionally, there's the Conflict of interest guideline that states that if you're involved in a topic you shouldn't write about it unless you can be certain your edits are neutral. I don't think you or he have been able to do that since the article still reads like a blatant advertisement. Neutrality, verifiability, and respecting copyrights are long-standing and central policies of the project. No article without those things is going to survive long. That said, I won't stop you from using your own judgement and using your own move button to put this back in the mainspace; I'm just letting you know it's not going to last there. If you need more help you can ask at the Help desk and read the policies and guidelines I've linked to here, plus check out Your first article. If you need answers to specific questions I'm still happy to help, but I'm done with trying to work on this article or give you feedback on it. I hope this is not coming across as incredibly mean, that's not my intention at all, I just feel like I've exhausted my usefulness in this particular project. Take care, hope it works out so everyone's happy. Peace, delldot ∇. 00:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback... I don't believe that you are being mean; however, I will have to disagree on one subject regarding a statement you made. You claimed that you don't think this topic is notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia? I would have to disagree with that. I don't have a bias toward the company; nevertheless, it has been active since 1984 and is a vital company within the Channel. It has been a model within the industry for many years, and has been noted by publications around the world. We just wanted a basic article in Wikipedia, and before you took it down, it was actually in the Wikipedia space for several YEARS. That's right, at least 3-5 years. I have witnessed many sites on Wikipedia that have almost no references, if any, and have been around for years. I believe the references used for ASCII are credible, reliable, and come from very legitimate sources, such as Times Union newspaper, Channel Partners Online, etc. Maybe you aren't familiar with the industry, but that's fine.

But thanks again for helping out! Seriously, you've been extremely helpful with your advice. I'm going to try to move it back to the main space for now.

Thanks again!.

CW221 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Best, CW221 (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Any by the way,

The article about the success summits are exactly what they do! We are just stating facts about the summits. It is completely neutral, and there is really no other way to phrase it. We also have the copyright to ASCII, if you wanted to see that??

We have had several people look at this article already, from outside help and industry people, everything is neutral and completely fact based. Anyway, there is no reason to keep going on this, so I will do my best to put it back in the main space.

Thanks. We really appreciate the time you've taken on this subject. Have a great night.

CW221 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ASCII Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131411060100/http://www.cristina.org/connections/vol3_issue5/art9b.html to http://www.cristina.org/connections/vol3_issue5/art9b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)