PattiMoly99

Welcome!

Hello, PattiMoly99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 20:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was: 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 User:PattiMoly99/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 20:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Fiddle Faddle 20:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...starting my own page... help!

PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Hello I would like help with my article so it does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies. I am the Executive Assistant at SHINE Medical Technologies. Our sister company created their page with the help of very nice editors, CassieMe, talks very highly of your group.

I have many articles, a binder full, that have been written about SHINE - and we are soon to receive our construction permit from the Nuclear Regulatory commission in October of this year. Thank you for your help in this matter! Is it appropriate for myself to edit the article, or someone like CassieMe to do it.

PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Since you are writing about your own company you have, from Wikipedia's point of view, a WP:Conflict of interest and should carefully read that page and the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You will see that you should not edit directly about your company, but may submit a draft for an uninvolved user to review. Note in particular that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use ("Paid contributions without disclosure" under section 4), and in some jurisdictions by laws against covert advertising, to disclose your interest in any edits where you have a COI.

Read WP:Your first article for advice. When writing about your company, remember that Wikipedia is not here to tell the story the company wants to tell about itself, but to provide information that the general encyclopedia reader might like to know. Take great care to avoid glowing adjectives and to maintain a WP:Neutral point of view. Avoid blue-sky mission statements and talking about the company's aims and hopes: stick to what it has actually achieved, plain facts cited to reliable sources. Wikipedia's inclusion test is called Wikipedia:Notability and looks for references showing showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? See also WP:CORP and WP:Notability (summary). JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi JohnCD not sure if I resubmitted the article correctly. Back to square one for me today! PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your draft is at Draft:SHINE Medical Technologies, and seems to be in the queue for review. You can always find where your own contributions are by clicking "Contributions" at the top of the screen.

I have tweaked it a bit. I don't know why you put [[s:Monona, WI]] or [[wikt:Phoenix Nuclear Labs]]: the "s" and "wikt" prefixes make links to other projects, Wikisource (an archive of source documents) and Wiktionary (a dictionary), which don't actually have anything to say about those subjects. To make a "wikilink" to another article in Wikipedia, you need only write the name between double square brackets, with no prefix, so [[Phoenix Nuclear Labs]] gives the link Phoenix Nuclear Labs. I have fixed those links, and done a little copy-editing, and added a link to the company's website, which is quite normal and proper.

The draft is nice and factual and neutral, but I doubt whether the references are enough to show notability. It's a pity they are all behind a paywall, but that's not fatal: what is more worrying is that they are all from the same author in the same local newspaper, and have rather the air of being press releases. It would help a lot if you can find any other independent commentary about the company.

One other tip: on talk pages (but not in articles) it helps to make clear who said what and when if you sign your contributions by ending them with a group of four "tilde" characters ~~~~, which the system will turn into a "signature" of your username and the time and date, like this: JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: SHINE Medical Technologies (April 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: 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:SHINE Medical Technologies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: SHINE Medical Technologies (May 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Arthur goes shopping was: 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:SHINE Medical Technologies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! PattiMoly99, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:SHINE Medical Technologies has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:SHINE Medical Technologies. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 14:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

PattiMoly99 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Wondering if I'm on the right track? DRAFT: SHINE Medical Technologies PattiMoly99 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: SHINE Medical Technologies (June 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kikichugirl was: 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:SHINE Medical Technologies and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— kikichugirl ^oh hello! 20:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! PattiMoly99, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! — kikichugirl oh hello! 20:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what they are looking for is several newspaper or magazine / journal articles that significantly discuss SHINE Medical Technologies. They would need to be more than just press release type coverage, something independent in a major paper like the Chicago Tribune. A case could also be made if there is extensive regional coverage, like numerous independent local and regional newspapers, Wisconsin State Journal, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Janesville Gazette. They are looking for articles more significant than "Company X is planning to build a factory in location Y" which is more like a publication of a press release rather than a researched thoughtful article about the company. Notability is something heavily debated on Wikipedia and very subjective, but three separate reviewers are saying it doesn't meet the threshold, at least in its present state. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If your computer has a Wisconsin IP address, one way to find sources is http://www.badgerlink.net/newspapers There are a number of regional articles in the "Newspaper Source Plus" database. I don't know if it will be enough to convince other editors, but you could use those articles as references for key points to demonstrate that newspapers are discussing the company. The bigger the newspaper the better and it should be something that reads like the author didn't just use a press release as their only source. You should also open the article with several sentences summarizing key points of notability right up top in the lead section. Claim notability right from the first sentences, without exaggerating, then prove it in the main body with citations from independent sources, newspapers, magazines, online coverage, etc. Something more than a press release. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it may be too early at this point, you might have to wait until the factory is built and production is in progress before large newspapers cover the company. Sorry. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi PattiMoly99! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:16, Monday, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi PattiMoly99! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:17, Monday, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi PattiMoly99! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:18, Monday, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Talkback

Hello, PattiMoly99. You have new messages at Howicus's talk page.
Message added 23:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Text links

Hi. Do not link names of entities and people to their own websites in your text. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion (see also WP:PROMO). The encyclopedia is supposed to summarize information in a convenient format (giving the various facts due weight and balance that has been presented in independent sources, such as books, scientific papers, news articles, magazine features, etc. Instead of linking to websites, you can add a ref to a news article, book, etc. that contains independent information about those entities or people that verifies the statements you make about them. Hope this helps. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

OH, ok, thank you. Question... regarding the British Pharmacopoeia - I have this: British Pharmacopoeia 2015, p. IV-712, but that is all. No reference as you have to pay for the information and many customers of Mo-99 do not want the information published. How can I use that, or is it best not to use that information. -- [PattiMoly99]

Hi. First, you (that is, we) need to judge whether the information, and what information, in any source is useful in an encyclopedia article. To cite information in the British Pharmacopoeia, or any source, we must give the bibliographic information: Author (or editor) name, Title of the book and chapter or article, page number(s) on which the specific information is found (and URL if the article or book is online), name of the Publisher (also city of the publisher), Date of publication and, if online, accessdate. Second, you need to sign your Talk page comments. You can do this automatically by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ssilvers, I received this message: from Dual Freq: Dual Freq (talk | contribs). (I'll just give you a little bit of a hand with the refs, or at least somewhere to start from. add refs for Argonne NL and Los Alamos as well as Morgridge) so you can see why I am confused. Add refs or not? Thank you, PattiMoly99 (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely add refs, with the full bibliographic citation information, as I noted above, but not mere LINKS to an entity's website. Look at what Dual Freq did at the article, which was to add real refs., not just links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: SHINE Medical Technologies has been accepted

SHINE Medical Technologies, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dual Freq (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of SHINE Medical Technologies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SHINE Medical Technologies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHINE Medical Technologies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Just so that you know, it was retained. "no consensus", which means we could not agree. That is almost certainly as it should be with this article. Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Now the draft has gone live

Please read and understand WP:COI and th implications for editing the article. You may comment freely in the deletion discussion, but much direct editing of the article is now closed to you because it is in the main namespace. The rules are relaxed while an article is a Draft: but, once an article, they are applied stringently. There is much now process for you to make yourself aware of. Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

My belief is that you received incorrect advice over the references while this was a draft. The problem that I see is that returning it to the Draft: namespace is unlikely to bear useful fruit principally because the entire corporation is vapourware, certainly today. If I felt it would have been useful I would either have returned it to draft under WP:BOLD and WP:IAR or proposed that the outcome of the deletion discussion be to return it to the Draft: namespace

Once the organisation has products and truly independent coverage, that is the time for an article. I'm hoping DGG might come to offer you their thoughts since they are an editor with no discernible bias and whose opinion I trust, the more so since they work with articles in or bordering being in academic circles.

I do realise that this has been a baptism of fire for you so far. The review process is intended to seek to prevent that from happening. It is far easier to go through an iteration of reviews and edits that defend a deletion discussion. Our proper role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Equally, every Wikipedia editor has the duty to ensure that articles have the right quality, in all senses of the word, to remain on Wikipedia.

I suspect you have been tasked by your employer to create a Wikipedia article on SHINE. If so you have been placed in a very difficult situation. Wikipedia is a very difficult place to write for, the more so when one is writing about one's employer. All articles come under heavyweight scrutiny. Some appalling ones slip through the net even so. Yours is not one of these. It is simply that I doubt that it is, in its current form certainly, unable to remain here, and probably should not remain anyway. That is what we are discussing. My view may or may not prevail. Consensus, by which I do not mean a ballot, will win the day either way. Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Good Morning Fiddle Faddle. I hope this day finds you well. I would like to respectfully disagree with your assertion that SHINE is "vapourware". SHINE has produced product with Argonne National Labs (we placed their press release on our website here.), however we are not licensed to produce it at our current facility in Madison. We are a company of 30 employees, backed by the US Government and currently going through the licensing process; which will be complete in October(ish). Thank you for understanding my frustration... as you can tell from these "talks" I tend to write how I speak, so flipping my mind to write neutrally is a GOOD learning process for me. I will continue to go through your comments today.. I can see validity in some of your comments, and you're right that I have been giving differing/conflicting advice; "take this out, put this in". I too look forward to DGG further input. Have a great day! PattiMoly99 (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The best advice I have for you is to look at each reference using WP:42 as your filter. If it passes then great. If not then either the reference must be replaced or the fact it supports needs to be considered for removal, probably removed. The problem you face is that you are now fighting a rearguard action, where you ought to have been left in the position of simply creating a viable article and going through reviews.

With the deletion discussion the best advice is to contribute once (ideally) stating what you have done to justify the retention of the article, and why you have done so. The ideal response is brief, to the point and complete - a paradox. Those who contribute multiple times tend to be empty vessels unless they make policy based and different points each time.

My comment 'vapourware' is not intended to be in any way hurtful. It describes with precision that which you have shown us, whether it describes the org accurately or not. I have no knowledge of this field let alone this org, so I judge articles on the article itself. While I am an experienced reviewer and participant at deletion discussions I am also human. I make errors, too. With the article as it stood when I reviewed the references I have almost certainly not made an error. With the org itself I may or may not have. That is for you to show.

Writing for Wikipedia is the toughest writing task you will ever encounter. Do it well and your writing skills in all genres will improve. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The COI element gives you a challenge, now, though. I suggest you place a comment on the article's talk page, stating your COI clearly and stating your intent to turn it form an article that may fail a deletion discussion into one that you believe will pass. Since your edits will be factual, will be removing unreferenced facts and will be without bias (that is an instruction, not a statement of fact) then this is likely to free you from accusations or WP:COI for this period (0.8 probability). Fiddle Faddle 21:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood. My plan was to be concise when I place my one and only comment. I do have some removed from the article, which I will state in my comment. You have tremendously helped. I may ask you another question or two before I place that comment, if that is allowed. Thank you. PattiMoly99 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Ask away. To make sure I see your question use the form {{U|Timtrent}} in the question, which will alert me. I am having a weekend, so may not see your question in a timely manner. I promise to answer, though I will not always know the answer. I am also not the sole person to ask. Have a look at the Teahouse and ask for thoughts from the folk there, too. As with all advice, consider it before you take it. Accept or reject advice with a good heart once considered. Fiddle Faddle 08:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

One area that is disappointing is that there is an editor adding references, but not being selective about the references they add. One of the symptoms of WP:BOMBARD is the proliferation of references that do not pass WP:42. There is far more success to be had with an article that is briefer and with substantial and reliable referencing for the facts asserted than a longer one cluttered with pseudo-references that are inappropriate. Should this article be deleted, something I feel likely to happen, I will be more than happy to offer policy based advice to you if you choose to create a replacement draft. From my conversations on that editor's talk page I suspect any conversation with them is unlikely to bear fruit. I will try, however. Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this also tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I put my WP:COI statement on the talk page. I printed out all the advice... thank you again! PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you put it on the deletion discussion talk page. I have copied (am about to copy) it to the article talk page Fiddle Faddle 18:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

^UGH!!

I took out a lot of the references today.. still working on it...

Timtrent my question is this - where it says: "SHINE plans to build its facility and begin commercial production in 2018" can a govt document be used, or is it self promoting? EIS DOC PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll use logic on this one. First a government document must be independent of SHINE, so that need is met. The author appears to me not to be a SHINE person, so independence is confirmed. It is not, as one might expect "significant coverage" because it is a report for the purposes of validating whether SHINE may move ahead to the next step. One can also argue whether the government is a reliable source. My conclusion is that it is probably borderline on the incorrect side of the border. All is not lost, however. WP:PRIMARY shows we may use primary sources. This is not, in my view, exactly a primary source, but it is not a true secondary source either. Logic says that we invoke WP:PRIMARY and make this part of the very sparing use we may make of primary sources.

There is no doubt that it is an important paper, but it is a part of the approval process. If it is to be used it must be a part of the referencing scheme. It may not be a reference upon which the survivability of the article depends. This is broadly similar to the use of court transcripts to verify a fact. Those only verify the testimony as given.

Does that help with this and similar potential references? Fiddle Faddle 21:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

YES!!!! VERY much. I have re-wrote most, taken out almost all of the PR and am now taking a fresh look tomorrow. Thank you again. I have a feeling you're in a way different time zone, so have a nice rest of the evening. PattiMoly99 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the UK. Glad to see you making good use of the Teahouse. There are a great many expert editors around who will be very happy to offer you help.

While there is a notional deadline for the deletion discussion, and while you should work towards meeting that need, it strikes me that this discussion could, at present go either way. It isn't a ballot, so we do not tally the numbers, but the closer is duty bound to weigh up the arguments. At present the arguments to delete are more policy based and those to keep are more emotionally based, but the result of a discussion like this is always in doubt.

When you have finished making changes to the article it is valid to ask all who have offered an opinion to delete it to revisit their opinion at the discussion. Some will, some will not. You may make this request both at the discussion and on the talk pages of individual editors. For the latter do not forget to link to both the article and the deletion discussion.

At risk of teaching you egg sucking and your turning out to be my grandmother, I suggest for the editors' talk pages the following: "I have spent some time editing SHINE Medical Technologies to address the concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHINE Medical Technologies where you offered the opinion that the article be deleted. Because of the many changes I ask that you revisit the article and reconsider the opinion you offered at the deletion discussion. I have a WP:COI here, declared on the article talk page and at the AfD, and have made what I hope and believe to be neutral and unbiased changes, something I understand to be acceptable. If the article is retained I will move to simply requesting edits to this article instead of making them myself."

That is the end of my eggs sucking tutorial. Fiddle Faddle 08:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL "egg sucking tutorial"! Funny stuff! I will make use of this lesson! I plan on finishing my edits today and submitting by EOB here in WI. Thanks again! Have a great rest of your day!

PattiMoly99 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing about the article on SHINE is that the world will not end if it is deleted nor if it is kept. Your boss may be a tad underwhelmed if it is deleted, but that is to be expected. He has far more important things to concern him - his business venture! I'm more than happy if it is deleted to work quietly with you on getting a replacement Draft: space article together to see if it can demonstrate notability prior to its putative 2018 debut, and absolutely not reviewing that myself. Others should do that. I also know an editor who is up for a challenge. They may find it amusing to work on it too. I have, as has been said elsewhere, only one opinion. Others have theirs. Together, for good or ill, we reach consensus. Articles are kept or deleted all the time, loads each day. Some ought to go and are kept. Others ought to be kept and are deleted. That is Wikipedia.

If it goes then you will know why. If it is kept then you will know I am wrong. Each is absolutely fine. You will be annoyed that work appears to have been wasted if it is deleted, but you are grown up and will not shed more than a couple of tears, and will have learned a lot, not all of it positive. I will shed no tears if it is kept. The trick is to be content either way. Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"but you are a grown up"... LOL! Sometimes my friends and I say "adulting is hard work". Not in this case however, I really have "enjoyed" the process. I have also grown as a writer I believe!! Will Greg be disappointed? I'm sure, but he likes to stretch me, as we say here, and I have learned much - and THAT makes him glad! I look forward, if the article is deleted, working with you! PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

your work won;t be wasted, because here seems to be agreement that it might well become notable. But when it is, & you do it again, emphasise the accomplishments, not the promise, and do it via WP:AFC. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks as if it will be a close run thing, and might even be extended to reach a good consensus.

Work here is never wasted. Articles may be undeleted, albeit sometimes for a brief period, to allow the salvaging of some or all of the content. I, too, commend WP:AFC to you, certainly until you feel fully fledged. The urgency over this article started because it was, unfortunately in my view, promoted from a Draft: when there remained work to be done. The whole process is designed to be far more relaxed than this has been. Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears someone is editing my edits... so I will bow out from making any edits that might retain the article. I look forward to the final consensus on SHINE. PattiMoly99 (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that is wise. I suggest "wait and see" now. It looks in pretty good shape to me. Fiddle Faddle 21:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The current result is what we might have achieved had the review process not ended in a premature promotion. I still have no idea whether it will be kept, deleted or merged, but now I have no concerns about the article itself, perhaps apart from editorial style. The editor who has made substantial edits is the one I was going to ask to help with a new draft had it been deleted. Their edits are often draconian, and they have a knack of cutting to basics. The objective is to have article at all and later, as matters develop to have (ideally) others edit it as new matters arise. This is a decent basis. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Very true!! Cut right to the heart of the matter!. Nice job!! 69.129.235.226 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog I would like to correct one edit... If I may? Where you say the facilities closed in 2009, that is not correct. They "shut down" for several months from 2009-2010 which caused the worldwide shortages. I didn't know if that needed to be clarified. Thank you for your hard work on the piece!

It has become apparent that folk care about this article. That is a good thing. My view now is that it will either be retained or merged into another article. Deletion is now unlikely. I have, however, been surprised before. The various folk who have weighed in and made edits have changed it radically from your initial piece, but they have fed on your work to create what is there today. I think watching and waiting is very much the best course of action. The deletion discussion ought to have closed some time ago. That it has not means that it is a difficult result to call. There is no actual deadline, just a minimum time period.

Whatever the result I think you can tell your boss that it has been well discussed and well fought over. He, too, should observe, but, just as when lighting a firework, should now stand well back and watch the show.

What I am sure of is that the original did not fulfil our policies as closely as the current version.

Though people deny it is a purpose of the process, one of the results of the AfD route is often the improvement of an article rather than its deletion. It can be harrowing for the main author, and cause a ruckus, but the outcome is usually that Wikipedia is improved, and often that the article is improved. Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you TimtrentI just looked and the article looks really good! On a side note, I watched with interested a segment on the creator of Wikipedia! Very interesting you can watch here if you'd like: I'm going on vacation tomorrow (July 28) and won't be watching the page until I return on Aug 6th. Thank you for all, everyone's help!PattiMoly99 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

References

That says a lot about the community you have your toe in the water with Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I just came back from my vacation to this message. Thank you to all the editors and their help. I will take you up on your previous offer. Just let me know how to get started! PattiMoly99 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

When you have done with the SHINE article...

What I would like you to consider is becoming a hobbyist Wikipedia editor.

Before you say "I could never do that!" and run away, let me tell you why I suggest it. Writing for Wikipedia is the hardest technical writing challenge you can ever have. Being able to write neutral, flat prose, sticking only to facts is a very hard discipline, and one that means, when you can do it, you can do any style of writing, possibly even a novel! That one edits Wikipedia does not enhance one's resumé, and should not appear on it, but it does provide a depth and breadth of the following skills:

• Interaction online in an argumentative environment with opinionated strangers
• The ability to offer help on skills and topics one understands
• The ability to learn to help by watching other folk interact
• Dispute resolution with the use of unfailing and quiet politeness
• Knowledge of how to call for expert help and how to find out where it is
• Writing skills that will benefit your entire working life and beyond
• The ability to care passionately about things, and yet not that much
• There is much more here

Please do this whether SHINE is deleted or retained. Note, as an example, that I care passionately about Wikipedia article quality, but will walk away from a dispute over it if necessary. I care about SHINE as I saw it before you started to edit it and that this iteration of it should be deleted, and I have argued for that based on policy, but I do not care enough to go out on a limb to say so often/emotionally. I have learned to be able to stand back from conflict. I "care, but not that much" Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is quite a compliment considering how I felt I have done during this process. Yes, I will consider it and will most likely take you up on the offer... After SHINE is deleted or retained.

PattiMoly99 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Timtrent I'd like to do this. PattiMoly99 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, PattiMoly99. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES ^(talk) 13:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Adopt-a-user

Hello. This is a courtesy note to inform you that I have removed the "adopt me" template from your User page. You have not been active on Wikipedia for some time (Mar 2016). Its presence misleads others into thinking that you are still seeking to be adopted and to be guided by another editor under the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user scheme. Obviously, you are completely free to reinsert it if you return to active editing and want to seek adoption again. (Just 'undo' my edit in the history of your user page to put it back). For simple questions about editing, just ask any of us at The Teahouse. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)