User talk:PascalPerry

As part of my data science academic duties, I've been looking for information about companies listed in the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). Found some info on the official site but it did not fit 100% of what I was looking for. I found that list in Wikipedia but with some company profiles missing. I then decided to come up with the missing information as a good opportunity to revive my involvement in Wikipedia that started years ago and continuously improve my article writing skills in conformance to content guidelines.

So here I've started with Accord Financial in my user space with the intent of going down the list of missing companies.

This is my very first article from scratch, so first things first, am waiting for the editor's feedback ;-)

—User:PascalPerry (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PascalPerry! You seem new here, so welcome to wikipedia! Thanks for your valuable comment regarding the external links of the ERP System Selection Methodology article. I had not reviewed them and you are right. I just moved your comment to the "Talk page" of that article: Talk:ERP_System_Selection_Methodology, which is the best place to discuss improvements on that article. Modifications of talk pages are shown on the Watchlist of editors who follow that page. I will also delete the spam links you suggest, and I will add a link to http://erp.technologyevaluation.com/ , which is one neutral evaluation site. Please feel free to edit the article, and to add comments on its talk page --Jordiferrer (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Accord Financial, from its old location at User:PascalPerry/sandbox/TSX-Listed Companies/Accord Financial. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware that leaving the category declarations on a draft page, but just disabling them behind nowiki tags or with a leading colon, is an option. However, there's no rule mandating that disabling the category declarations is mandatory and removing them entirely is forbidden, and there are in fact valid reasons why removing them is often preferable. Sometimes draft pages get "filed" in redlinked categories that don't even exist at all, or in categories that wouldn't be the correct ones for the page even if it were in mainspace (e.g. filing an American writer directly in Category:United States), so neither of those types of categories should actually be left on the page at all — and if I'm processing a batch of DRAFTNOCAT violations in AWB, then I have no way of determining whether any given category is "one that should be removed as wrong or nonexistent" or "one that should be left here and just disabled". AWB simply doesn't show whether a category declaration actually exists as a bluelinked category or not, or whether it has more appropriate subcategories than the ones that were applied — so there's simply no way to judge "are these the correct categories or not?" in an AWB batch.

Furthermore, it's been my experience that the novice users who are confined to creating new pages in draftspace are, as a rule, a lot more likely to respond to disabled categories by undisabling them, causing the page to tumble back into the DRAFTNOCAT cleanup queue again, than they are to readd categories that have simply been removed — pages that have had their categories removed rarely come back into the cleanup queue again, while pages that have had their categories simply disabled come back again much, much more frequently. The goal of the cleanup queue isn't just to clean up the mess, it's also to minimize future cleanup work by reducing the likelihood of pages coming back into the cleanup queue again. So an approach that significantly reduces the number of pages bouncing back into the queue a second or third time can honestly be preferable to one that does not.

So if you want to disable categories on draftspace pages, or readd removed categories in disabled form, then that's totally up to your discretion — you're free to do that all you like. But you're not welcome to criticize other people for making a different choice of how to deal with them, because there are legitimate and valid reasons why somebody might prefer the removal approach as well. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for your time extensively detailing the rationale behind your removing the categories of the draft page. It shows how dedicated you are to your duties and careful towards the community. I've definitely a lot to learn from experienced wikipedians : your explanation sheds an interesting light on how theory is applied on the field. And am sorry had you been offended by the impression I was criticizing your work, which I had no intent, really ;-) I may have indeed presented my point in a more diplomatic way saying that the reading of WP:DRAFTNOCAT tends to (strongly) imply that categories should not be removed but hidden using one of the multiple options given and then re-enabled upon the page has moved to the article space. So should someone complement WP:DRAFTNOCAT to take into account your insightful recommendation from the field not to hide but remove categories? —Pascal PERRY (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2018 (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 K.e.coffman was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Accord Financial 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:Accord Financial, 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.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PascalPerry! 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! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Accord Financial, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PascalPerry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Accord Financial".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (Talk) 03:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]