Bcahillc

Welcome!

Hello, Bcahillc, 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. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Bcahillc, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft notes

Hi, I wanted to give you some feedback on your draft. The biggest issue I saw concerned its tone.

The draft needs to be edited to read in a neutral point of view. At several points in your article the content seems to be promoting Adidas and their efforts, something that I think may be due to you using primary sources. Also avoid using phrases like "our" and "us" - this is seen as personalizing the piece, meaning that the content would be seen as being written from one person's perspective. You especially need to tone down the promotional tones in the section on Adidas shoe design, as this sounds really promotional.

You also need to be careful about being too general. For example, you could get rid of the History of Ocean Plastic Problem and Virgin Plastic sections entirely, as they go into too much detail and aren't about the Adidas company per se. This is one of the way that Wikipedia differs from an academic paper, as we can link to the article for marine debris and to plastic, which would have the needed context. I would also recommend not including the information about the production of athletic footwear since this would be best included in the sneakers article in general, once it's made more neutral, and you could link to this section. I would also recommend removing the Parley A.I.R. Strategy section, since that also goes into more detail than Wikipedia really needs. The basic gist is that you need to give a brief overview of what Adidas is doing. Other sections to be removed are Climate Change Efforts from Big Companies and Economic Benefit of Using Recycled Plastic.

You can link to reports, but you shouldn't hotlink to them within the article. Those would be best used as sources or not linked to.

I've created a draft at User:Bcahillc/draft2 that removes the sections I listed above, so the main thing that you would need to do is remove the promotional tones and make it more neutral. I'll make some additional edits towards this end to give you an example of what I mean. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've whittled the content down further and looking at the content, it really looks like this would really only warrant a single paragraph in the article. You also need to be careful of sourcing. Not all sourcing is considered to be reliable. Here are some typical things to look for:

1. Who wrote it? If there's no author attached to the piece (ie, near the title) then check the bottom of the page and/or the about page to see if there is any information about authorship. If there's no authorship information at all to show you who is writing the article and is responsible for the website, then the site is almost certainly not something that could be used as a reliable source.
2. Is there any information about their editorial process? A good reliable source should have their editorial board (and ideally something about their process) posted. Sites that don't have this are likely not reliable.
3. Where is the source posted? This is important for cases where people self-publish their work or publish somewhere outside of their norm, even if the person would otherwise be seen as a reliable source. The issue with the "where" is that some places don't verify the information or even provide editing for grammatical or spelling errors. Sometimes self-published work can be used as a source, but it's fairly rare.
4. Do they mirror Wikipedia content? This is definitely something to be careful about, as some people will only use Wikipedia as a source or in the case of this website, just mirror the content. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, the content cannot be used to source Wikipedia.
5. Does the source explicitly make the claim you want to add to the article? Sources can only be used to back up claims if they specifically state that same claim. This is actually a pretty common mistake with new users, especially if you're used to writing academic papers. It's perfectly fine to draw your own conclusions in an academic paper - it's a good way to learn - however this differs on

You also need to make sure that the site isn't a self-published blog and that it doesn't offer sponsored articles or similar marketing offers. Finally, one thing to be cautious of are sources that say almost the exact same thing - a lot of the sources about the sneakers say the same things, so the coverage here wouldn't really be seen as truly in-depth. While you do need more than just 1-2 sources, if the sources are from the same time period and/or say essentially the same thing then using many of them is a bit redundant. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft notes 2

Hi! Your professor asked me to weigh in on your draft. Unfortunately this still has a major issue with tone, as this reads too much like a press release for the company. Your heart is in the right place, however I have to agree with your professor Mcassell04 in that it reads a lot like an OP/ED for the brand. I have to be honest in that I don't think that this needs as much detail as you're going into here and I'm also concerned with some of the sourcing you've used. For example, this would not be seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia as we can't really verify its editorial process at all. It doesn't mean that the information is wrong, just that since we can't verify that it has an editorial process (ie, fact checking and such) it wouldn't hold up to the verification guidelines on here.

There also seems to be some original research going on here by way of the sourcing that's generally about pollution, recycled footwear, and sustainability. By this I mean that while you do have sourcing for footwear related pollution and such, this is a fairly general area and placing it in the Adidas section says that it absolutely applies to this partnership they've formed. The issue here is that we can't say with any absolute guarantee that everything in that section applies to this particular type of footwear and clothing they're making, which means that we're presuming that this applies to Adidas footwear - making it original research. It would likely be fine in a section about recycled clothing, but it just doesn't fit here - especially as this actually makes the whole section feel more like a promotional "yay Adidas" OP/ED piece. (I don't mean that to sound harsh, I'm just concerned that if posted as is, it would just be quickly removed.)

I think that the best option here would be to split the material - the general material about the recycling and footwear's carbon footprint should go into an article about recycled clothing after you've gone through the sourcing. I've separated this for you. The second would be to take the material from the first section and condense it down. This will not only help deal with any promotional content but it will also help you to go through the sourcing. Avoid using quotes as much as possible. I would actually recommend that you work from the draft I made at User:Bcahillc/draft2 and expand it slightly from there. That draft has the content boiled down into a fairly brief and succinct paragraph with most of the major stuff covered. I'll post it in your main sandbox so you will definitely see it. I also recommend that you look over my recommendations from the last time - the advice there still applies.

I hate that this sounds harsh - it's not meant to be, but in its current state this will almost certainly be removed once it's detected. It's just too much of a promotional piece for the company and this partnership in its current state. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging Abangur2, Colinabell and Ksugseed as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bcahillc/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bcahillc/sandbox, 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 removed 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. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi! It looks like this was still a little too promotional, so when it was moved it was nominated for deletion. It also looks like you didn't rename it when you moved the page. In any case, I've asked the deleting admin to restore the page so we can work on addressing the issues. If restored, I recommend that we make this a subsection in the main Adidas page, as I don't know if there's enough to justify it having its own article just yet. I'll keep you updated. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 15:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi! I wanted to let you know that some of the additions you made to the Adidas Parley article were removed because they were seen as a copyright violation, namely that you had added content that had been previously published elsewhere. Be careful of this, as this is not only seen as a copyright issue but also one of plagiarism, even if you cite the source material. I'd like for you to go over the plagiarism module as this explains Wikipedia's policies on this fairly well, thanks. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Adidas Parley concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Adidas Parley, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Adidas Parley

Hello, Bcahillc. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Adidas Parley".

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 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. HasteurBot (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)