Hello, Huddsblue! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huddsblue! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2006 Southeast Asian haze page, your edit caused a cite error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ankogel.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huddsblue, Thanks for your message, and welcome. I'm quite busy right now and don't have the opportunity to do much editing so I'm not sure how much I can help. I'll have a look at your new Ankogel page and tweak it a bit when I have the chance. Best advice I can give is to look at the coding, style and formatting of other similar pages and follow that. It's what I did when I got started and seems to work fine. You also need to sort out the copyright info for the image. Good luck! Ericoides (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice! I think I've cracked it ;-)

That's great news. (PS Always remember to sign every post on Talk pages with four tildes, so people know who's made the post and when! Colon indents, as here (click the edit tab to see the coding), also help to keep a nice sense of spatial order.) Ericoides (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Chelmsley Wood

added a link pointing to Meriden

Großer Muntanitz

added a link pointing to Tyrol

Watzespitze

added a link pointing to Tyrol

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the improvements to the Stephanie Theobald page - lovely stuff. YellowFratello (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Ball (naturalist) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Among his accomplishments, he was the first to climb a [[Dolomites]] peak [[Monte Pelmo]] in 1857). He also travelled in [[Morocco]] (1871) and South America (1882), and recorded his observations

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Rajesultanpur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to ATM and Union Bank

Siege of Syracuse (278 BC) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heracleides

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Phnom Penh Crown FC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Young Lions, BBU, Etoile, David Booth, Svay Rieng and Khemara

Santa Cristina Gherdëina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ladin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you often use the {{db}} template with your own invented rationales ({{db|1=insert reason here}}). Please note that the criteria for speedy deletion are very narrowly defined. The use of the non-specific db template should be limited. Instead, use deletion templates that are specific to the particular criteria: {{db-band}} for non-notable bands, {{db-person}} for non-notable persons, {{db-hoax}} for blatant hoaxes, etc. If you are unfamiliar with these templates, you can find them listed under Category:Speedy deletion templates. Please familiarize yourself also with the allowable criteria for speedy deletion. If an article is not eligible for speedy deletion, then do not tag it for such; use one of the other deletion processes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Huddsblue. You have new messages at Huddsblue's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Dan61 yes I am trying to learn. I saw someone else use that template and thought it applied to all prop deletion. I will try to follow your advice, so thank you for taking the time to write to me {{Huddsblue (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Gran Paradiso page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kitzbüheler Horn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ORF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Triglav may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ''Triglav'' also include ''Terglau'' in 1612, ''Terglou'' in 1664 and ''Terklou'' around 1778–89). The name is derived from the compound ''*Tri-golvъ'' (literally 'three-head'—that is, 'three

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent efforts in adding citations to many mountain related articles. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 04:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! If I may offer just a couple small tips. Peakbagger has its own ref template Template:Cite peakbagger. It may save you some time to use it, and some of this discussion may be applicable as why you should use it. See here for an example of the template in use. Also note that the comma doesn't affect the displayed elevation and prominence values, so it's not entirely necessary to add it in. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. When an article is categorized to a sub-category of another category, it is proper to only cat the sub-category and not the parent, lest we defeat the purpose of sub-catting in the first place. I have corrected most all such changes you have made, for example here.Thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 06:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to all the Category:Mountains of Liechtenstein mountains that have been been put in Category:Mountains of the Alps despite the latter already being the parent of the former. I have not fixed these. JMiall₰ 09:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok If I'm going to get reprimanded constantly for added categories that seem logical to me I'll stop. I'm just trying to help and add some consistentcy, and it also gives me a chance to add to or clean up articles as I see fit {Huddsblue (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Huddsblue, you shouldn't think of it as being reprimanded. On the contrary. You have been doing very well and making a lot of quality edits. Yes, several editors have brought to you a few concerns. It's mostly just minor stuff. but since you have been editing rather heavily in one particular genre, it's worth our time to stop by and help you smooth out the few wrinkles in your editing style. Think of it as the rest of us trying to "quickly bring you up to speed", to use Bermicourt's words below, and I agree that you have quickly brought yourself up to speed!

Regarding @JMiall:'s comment above. True Category:Mountains of Liechtenstein is a sub-category of Category:Mountains of the Alps, but since one is geopolitical category and the other a physical geographic category, I feel it's not wrong for a page to be categorized in both because it could be reached from each of two separate paths. Consider K2 is categorized under Category:Mountains of Gilgit-Baltistan and Category:Karakoram. And Mount Everest is categorized under Category:Mountains of Nepal and Category:Himalayas, despite Mountains of Nepal being a sub-category of Himalayas. I guess the logic of our category system eludes me as well.

All the best to you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much involved in categorization so can't claim any great expertise but my opinion is that:

1. category diffusion is a very good thing because it enables large categories to be vaguely browsable
2. the use of a vast category such as Mountains of the Alps with potentially thousands of direct members as a means of generating a list of mountains in the Alps is not the way should be going - wikidata or list articles should be able to provide this functionality
3. I was regarding Mountains of Liechtenstein as being a logical way of diffusing Mountains of the Alps as one is entirely a subset of the other. Although I get the geopolitical / physical geographic category distinction so maybe the mountains could be in both categories...
4. ...but then Mountains of the Alps would still need diffusing in a physical geography way and it turns out that we do have categories corresponding to these sub-ranges of the Alps (eg Category:Karwendel, Category:Totes Gebirge and many others) which contain articles on things in these ranges, but these are not just mountains, they could be huts or towns or whatever. Very few of of these divisions have a subcategory of Mountains of x.
5. so I'd suggest that a really useful bit of categorisation would be to create and populate these categories, such as Category:Mountains of the Rätikon, which could be then regarded as diffusable child categories of Mountains of the Alps.

Thoughts? @Racerx11: JMiall₰ 21:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes I didn't realise I was opening up such a can of worms! The reason I have been categorising them as Mountains of the Alps is because A) that's what they are and B) Because so many of the articles are poor quality stubs that I want them all in the same place to make it easier for me to go through each article one-by-one and improve any worthy mountains as I can - it will take over a year but I am prepared to try. And by doing it this way I have already found duplicate articles, which I have fixed, as well as articles with no merit such as a peak with 3m prominence, which should, imo, never been created in the first place and I will just ignore... so what is the harm?{{Huddsblue (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

The cans of worms are half the fun! (or to put it another way - it's our job as editors to sort out the worms so that the people just reading don't see much wiggling)

Anyway, to some extent there is next to no harm, but equally all pages could be put in the categories that are way up their category trees (all men could be in Category:Men for example) but this isn't the way Wikipedia is put together. Also Wikipedia's category structure shouldn't really be decided in order to create a list for one editor to go through (you could use a subpage in your userspace for this for example, or a talkpage of a wikiproject). It should be decided based on something similar to what already exists so that all the other readers can navigate it and understand it. Have you read WP:CAT (particularly Category tree organization onwards) (there's an interesting discussion on the talkpage there at the moment too)? JMiall₰ 00:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monte di Tremezzo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Daniel (mountain) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tyrol

Trogkofel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carinthia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the barnstar, Hudds. It's good to have someone else working on the project! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hudds. Thank you for your good-faith edits on this article. However, I just checked the Oxford Dictionary of English and the spelling there is "subdivision". It's the same with "subgroup" and "subregion". The only one I couldn't find was "subrange" which I'm now starting to hyphenate: i.e. "sub-range". Also Wikipedia has some funny rules about headers and titles: they don't normally use title case or the word "The" at the beginning. So a Wiki header would be "Origin of the name" and not "The Origin of the Name". I haven't reverted your edits as I thought you might want the chance to check out what I'm saying first. And of course I'm happy to be corrected! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for bringing this to my attention - I'm still a novice at this! I've reverted my grammar changes and just kept the new links! {{Huddsblue (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)}}[reply]

Gosh, I hadn't realised you were such a newcomer! You've certainly got up to speed quickly and made your mark! Well done! Feel free to bounce questions off me. I'm not an expert, but I've been doing this a while and got a feel for how they do things around here, at least in some areas. Much of my work is translating from German Wiki as you'll have gathered. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huddsblue. First I would like to say I completely agree with Bermicourt. You have been doing very well for a relatively new editor, and to a large degree, by even seasoned editor standards. Keep up the good work!

I have noticed when you add a reference section heading, you have been formatting it as ===References=== (three equal signs each end). That syntax would be for a sub-section heading. The 'References' section is a primary section, so the heading should be executed as ==References== (two equal signs each end). See MOS:HEADINGS. I think this has been fixed in most every case, here's an example of one of the fixes, so this is just a friendly "from now on please, it would help" sort of advice. Thanks. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 23:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I only probably understand about 1% of what it takes to be a proper wikipedia editor! I generally try to copy what others do lol! Atm I have decided to put all my Wikipedia energy into the Alps because it's probably the only area I can manage at the moment - good job for me that there's such a lot of work to be done! Tbh I've no idea how to properly translate articles from other articles and to reference them! Oh and I would also be interested in creating articles about Valleys that are missing on English wiki, but I doubt there is a Valley equivalent to Summitpost! Again, thank you both for your sound and generous advise {Huddsblue (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Großer Rosennock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eisenhut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alberich Rabensteiner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sulz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leopold Trattinnick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but lack of references and broken English are not reasons for speedy deletion. The nonsense tag WP:CSD#G1 specifically excludes poor writing, and referencing doesn't come into speedy deletion at all. Although something well referenced may have a more credible claim to significance, lack of references only comes in at WP:PROD and WP:AFD. The referencing only really comes in with blatant hoax as a speedy - if it can be referenced, it's definitely not a blatant hoax (but a lack of reference doesn't mean that it actually is a hoax). Peridon (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another one - schools. You can't use A7 on schools. It actually says 'educational establishments', which is a bit vague - but schools and universities definitely come in. Things like 'martial arts academies' tend to be regarded as not being ed ests. In between, it's anyone's guess - is a Sunday afternoon football 'academy' an educational establishment? Or a School of Beauty? Like above, prod and AfD can be used (but 'high schools' and above tend to have an assumed notability), and of course copyvio and advertising etc can be tagged for. There's a lot to learn in CSD - it's a bit like a theological manual crossed with a railway timetable... Peridon (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huddsblue. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Angoori Bani Angaara, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to films - consider PROD or AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Not very complimentary. In fact the article is not a translation at all but written by me in English and for what it is worth I am English. Must have gone wrong somewhere. Think it best to leave this. Perhaps someone will take the challenge and improve my English text. Weglinde (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huddsblue. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shuʿba Ibn al-Ḥajjāj, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. It's been cleared up massively and most definitely passes now Huddsblue (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Adding to what Peridon said above, there is good advice for speedy taggers from a very experienced admin at WP:A7M and WP:10CSD. Keep up the good work! JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Huddsblue (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi noticed you disputed neutrality but you left no comments on the article talk page. Please state your concerns clearly so they can be dealt with, Thanks AmyEBHC (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Huddsblue (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You have reason to believe" is not sufficient and then you slap it with another bigger penalty, quite a welcome for my first page what exactly are your concerns. It is impossible to improve what is not said, it would be great to have constructive and helpful feedback AmyEBHC (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not slapped it with any kind of penalty. It's now obviously up to the community to decide. Huddsblue (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been presented. That's a very serious personal attack. I have removed the tag, even though the tag says that AMY herself can remove it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intention to cause offence to Amy or to anyone. How have I attacked her, or anyone else personally? I brought up a concern that the article may not have been totally neutral in tone. After she sent me the message expressing her concern over the neutrality tag I explained to her I then looked at her Wikipedia page and it states very clearly that she does work in that industry. I didn't say she was she was promoting anything, (although others have raised concern about her articles too in her talk page) I said it's up to the community to decide. I'm new to this and am prepared to take advice off experienced editors, as you have seen. I'm only trying to help. I was also under the impression that it was against the rules to undo deletion tags, and I have seen others been warned not to do it, hence why I put it back on.Huddsblue (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Be bold It even says so on your talk page, yet when I try to flag up a concern, Amy takes it to heart and I end up getting accused of making "serious accusations" by you which was not my intention. Huddsblue (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I'm going to view this as an unintentional thing. The tag states that the article is "written by somebody with a very close tie to the company" (in this case an organization). That's a COI accusation, even if you didn't intend it as such. Amy is connected to ThinkWell, not Evidence Aid. There is a difference. She happens to be a highly skilled and professional subject expert whom we'd like to retain as an editor here. She has done an excellent job, considering it's her first article. Of course it can be improved, and we can all do that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to jump on the bandwagon here but there are several issues that cause me concern. First an accusation of COI diff is substantial and serious. Such an accusation should only be made with evidence and lacking such evidence should be retracted. (A pointed but acceptable technique used on WP is to ask an editor directly if they have a COI.) Second the assertion that only administrators can remove a template diff, this is absolutely untrue. You should retract the statement you made on a user's talk page. Third the NPOV template states, "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." You have not provided specifics and policy based rationale. For what it is worth, I happen to agree that the article has some serious issues, and I have raised them on the talk page. A more appropriate tag would probably be advert. I hope you come to the talk page of the article with some specific issues and suggestions for improvements. I think the advert like/promotional tone is made worse through excess use of weasel words, the article needs independent, secondary reliable sources and should be fact based, concise and encyclopedic anything you can think of to improve it would be excellent. Pointing out specific phrases, words etc. that need improvement would also be useful. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill I will retract my statement fully on her talk page. The reason why I said "I have a reason to believe" is because, I looked on Amy's Wiki page and she stated she was involved "Evidence-Based Healthcare". I made a direct link in my mind with this and "Evidence Aid". In other words I put 2 and 2 together and got 5. The second mistake I made was obviously writing what I did in the talk page without realising that I was writing without thinking. I'm not aware of an "Advert" tag apart from the one used for Speedies, and I didn't put a Speedy Deletion tag on there because there was enough of a question mark about the article to let the community decide whether it was or not. This was my thinking anyway. The original offence taken by Amy was when I put the Neutrality tag on the article, which was not meant to cause offence at all, it was meant to flag up a concern I had. And then only after I read her user page I read all the marketing words in that including "Evidence-Based Healthcare" hence why the Prod. It wasn't meant as a vendetta against Amy or an offence against her article. Anyway I don't really want to go back to old ground as I don't want to say anything that may lead to another altercation. I'll leave it in the hands of guys like you with far more experience than me. Thank you for your input.Huddsblue (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i wanted to jump on this yesterday - i am late, but hope you all will hear me. For those who don't know me, i work a lot on COI issues here and am very active at WP:COIN. This is a collision of two (1) well intentioned and very promising new editors. It is clear to me that Huddsblue was well-intentioned and it is clear that a) he was tentative in what he wrote: "Also appears to have very close ties to this company. I have reason to believe that this could be a promotional article" and b) owned it: "i have reason to believe". This is very different from harsh and definitive claims I have seen people make, with no subjunctive mood. So.. the criticism of Huddsblue is overly harsh. There are a lot of promo articles created that should not exist, and we need editors scanning new articles to weed out really bad ones.

Huddsblue you did handle that poorly, and if you are open to it, i will work with you on how to address these concerns better. There are much better ways to do it, that are not as alarming to people on the receiving end and are more effective. Let me know.

AmyEBHC you over-reacted a bit. I acknowledge that Huddsblue handled his concern awkwardly, and I understand it is unhappy to have someone raise these questions, but please understand that Wikipedia is flooded with new articles that about organizations that are written by people connected with them, and are PR efforts, and really do fail our NOTABILITY guideline. Yours did look like that, a bit. It is great that editors are helping you improve it. Does that make sense? Nobody is a "bad guy" here, as far as I can see.

Does that make sense to everybody? Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]