User talk:SJayQ

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harveys The Original Seatbelt Bag

It may be possible to write an article about this company, but this wasn't it, it was far too promotional. Phrases like "passionate about such as vintage designs," "unique color combinations," "great customer service", "loyal following of customers" etc. are PR-speak, what we call peacock terms; what you have written was not an encyclopedia article, it was an advertisement, and advertisements are speedily deleted even in user space. Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view. When you write for Wikipedia, you need to imagine a hostile critic looking over your shoulder saying, for every claim and every glowing adjective: "Who says so? Can you prove that from an independent reliable source? No? Then take it out." In writing an encyclopedia article you should be describing your subject, but not in any way promoting it.

Wikipedia has a fundamental policy of WP:Verifiability which "requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source."

If they are to have an article, you will also have to establish notability, a requirement to have a Wikipedia article, which is not a matter of opinion but must be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, Twitter, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases.

More detail in the WP:FAQ/Organizations and WP:Notability (organizations and companies), and good general advice about writing an acceptable article at WP:Your first article.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the spamming part is valid. You were given some ideas about notability (especially for businesses), and how not to use flowery, peacock wording. Your original userspace draft was deleted as horrifically promotional, so you decided to actually recreate it in articlespace, ignoring the advice that was given to you. I appreciate that you're "excited to work within the rules", but can you please explain a little better about the rules you're now intending to follow? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article had transformed into a less promotional piece at the time it was deleted. Other users had contributed as well. I took out useless links, and wording, and will continue to. Also I plan on updating my sources to include independent outlets. The company has been in the public eye for a long time and i will included these sources. This is my first article and I clearly made a first timer mistake, live and learn. My new article will be completely neutral and just the facts on the company. SJayQ (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the last version, before it was deleted. There's no notability, no reliable sources, it's 100% promotional, and there's nothing worth salvaging. This is not a business directory, it's an encyclopedia. Where's the encyclopedic value of this specific purse manufacturer? So they make things out of seatbelts - that's not notable, it's merely minorly unique. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article Dooney & Burke or Coach. Both of these are also handbag companies. Harveys has a HUGE following, and just because you do not see the notability in the article does not mean that it is not there. They have been featured in lots of magazines and television spots. Celebrities are known to carry their bags as well. They are innovative and working towards a greener world. A model for other companies. They have a history that needs to be told and lots of people will use Wikipedia to read it, if only the article can be written. Like I said I will rework the article to meet the standards of wikipedia.... but i can not do that with a blocked user name. Thank you for your understanding in this and please see things from the perspective of your readers who will value the information I have. SJayQ (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, I just looked at Dooney & Bourke, and let me recommend that you don't use it as an example. It's a poorly-sourced piece of crap, actually. That said, its notability is far more clearly established. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you for seeing the notability. Will you allow me to work on the article as a draft in my userspace? SJayQ (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Harvey's still has zero notability established - as I said, it's Dooney & Bourke that have more clearly established notability. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you taking your notability from? They have been featured in many published news articles, magazines, television. Both in the US and in other countries. I do not understand what more you need. They have retail locations, and they bags are carried in stores all over the United states. They have stores and press in other countries as well. They were asked by Mercedes-Benz, Disney, Hyundai, and Mattel to make exclusive bags for their companies. When Walt Disney asks you to work with them... I think this is considered notable. Please allow this article to be written. I am working with you, please see my side. SJayQ (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see this blog post for the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising... note the title. link — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJayQ (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 February 2011

Giving blog posts as evidence of notability is dangerous. The majority of blogs are not reliable sources. (I do not know about this blog in particular.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

I have received an email from you, and so that others can see what you said, I am reproducing the text of it here:

I am currently blocked as a user, and I am unable to write on your talk page. I am the original creator of the Harveys Original Seatbelt Bags article. I am very sorry for the interaction you had on your talk page with other users. It in no way represents me or the subject matter of my article. People are very passionate about this company and sometimes take it out on the wrong person.
I would love to get a chance to edit this article as to fall in the guidelines of Wikipedia. I tried my best to make it as informative and unbiased as possible, but as a first article i understand where I went wrong. I have new ideas and updates that i feel would meet your requirements.
This is in no way a promotional article, and if it came out that way I apologize. I just want to get the facts out there. I removed useless links, and another user has updated some of the wording as to make it fit the Wikipedia standards. I plan on removing phases with quotes as well.
I did not know realize how strict the guidelines and standards were when I started this, and now I am getting a better understanding. As a writer it makes me respect the process that much more.
Please work with me to make this page one that will be informative and exactly what Wikipedia prides itself on.

I am willing to believe you can learn from your mistakes and work towards editing in accordance with Wikipedia's standards, and so I am unblocking you to give you another chance. Welcome back. I hope that your future on Wikipedia is better than your past, and that you never have to be blocked again. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Help / Advice

Please leave me any advice or changes for the new Harveys article. Thank You. SJayQ (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look over your draft article at User:SJayQ/Harveys (handbag manufacturer). It certainly looks better than the first version. I will make a few remarks about the sources that you have referenced. It is necessary to have reliable independent sources in order to establish that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. "Independent" sources excludes the company's own material, and anything which appears to be promotional in character. Contrary to what some Wikipedia editors think, there is nothing wrong with using the company's own site for verification of facts stated in the article, but their own site and any promotional coverage do nothing to indicate notability of the company, and for this independent sources are needed. Some of the referenced sources are the Harveys' own promotional pages, and a quick skim over the others suggests that some of them may be essentially promotional, but there are a few that look to me like reliable independent sources, enough, I would say, for the purpose. I do not feel that the page is "unambiguous advertising or promotion" which was, as you will remember, the reason for deletion of earlier versions. I can't see any obvious defects in the page, but I don't think that I am particularly good at advice on detailed writing of articles: there are others who are much better at it. You could try asking for advice at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, which can sometimes be a useful way of getting advice. However, it is not entirely reliable, and sometimes requests linger there unanswered for a long time. I have very little experience of it, but my impression is that you may be more likely to get a response if you say something about what you are trying to do, rather than just give a vague "any advice" remark. Anyway, I suggest giving it a try. (NOTE: If you do go there, click on the "Click to add request" button to add your request. Don't attempt to add a request by actually editing the page, as the requests are not actually contained in the text of that page, but are held elsewhere, and mirrored to the view of that page when it is displayed.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, sorry that I forgot to clear the autoblock. I see it's done now, but I should have done it immediately, and saved you a little more trouble. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]