User talk:Rcjqffm

Welcome!

Hi Rcjqffm! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Rcjqffm/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Rcjqffm/sandbox. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

We are surprised by your comments. Firstly, our submission is supported by 33 references (academic books and journals) and 8 footnotes incl. sources. Secondly, our submission is not written in the style of an advertisement. We are the official translators of the CEFR-CV into German. In this role, we have not only read every line and sentence of it but also referred back to the Council of Europe's authoring team whenever a point did not seem clear to us. Our intention is to give a balanced overview of the new CEFR-Companion Volume without neglecting critical appraisals. You may be interested to know that we submitted a similar article to the German Wikipedia, which was accepted and published without changes. The reason why we are submitting this here is that an adequate entry in English introducing the CEFR-CV is missing. We would appreciate, therefore, if you re-read our submission and - if necessary - be more specific with respect to points you find in need of improvement. Thanks. Rcjqffm (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Rcjqffm

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Rcjqffm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, Rcjqffm. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but a page you created  User:Rcjqffm has been deleted as meeting one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects of articles must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources which are unconnected with the subject and which provide verifiable information. Someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject. Please see WP:CORP for subjects that are groups or companies or organizations. Please see WP:ANYBIO for subjects who are people. Please see Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure is a useful tutorial.

Also, encyclopedia articles must be neutral in tone and not use language that promotes or advocates for a subject, or tries to cast the subject in a favorable light. Please see Information on content and common pitfalls to avoid here and here. Sometimes creators of promotional/advocational content are bewildered that it is considered such. If one has been trained to write such content, or if one has spent some time writing such content, one may simply be blind to non-neutral phrases or styles.

A common assumption is that the prohibition against promotional editing applies only to businesses or organizations. Anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

CV's/resumé's are by their nature promotional. Writing about oneself or any connected subject is discouraged as the connection can make objectivity difficult. Information on avoiding advocational content and common pitfalls is here and here, however be aware that these are not exhaustive.

New article creation can be difficult, but the Article Wizard can help you. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. You can seek help IRC chat, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk Sometimes it is better to first gain experience by fixing and helping maintain existing articles. Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask contains links to things that badly need doing, if you are so inclined.

User pages and User talk pages are intended only to assist collegiality among users. They are not to be used as a soapbox for writings not connected with the editorial process on Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and

• not a free webhosting service ,
• not a personal website,
• not a blog
• not a social media site

Nor are user pages intended to host articles, CV's/resumés or lengthy autobiographies. Wikipedia is not a promotional venue or a place to post ads. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia ~ subjects of articles must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources which are unconnected with the subject and which provide verifiable information. For article creation, Please use WP:AfC and/or request help at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. You can also seek help via IRC chat.

More information on user pages is available at THIS PAGE.

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I'm surprised by your comments. Firstly, our submission is supported by 33 references (academic books and journals) and 8 footnotes incl. sources. Secondly, our submission is not written in the style of an advertisement. We are the official translators of the CEFR-CV into German. In this role, we have not only read every line and sentence of it but also referred back to the Council of Europe's authoring team whenever a point did not seem clear to us. We are not commissioned or paid by anyone. Neither are we the authors of the CEFR-CV or writing on behalf of the Council of Europe. Our sole motivation is to update Wikipedia content on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and provide a reliabel overview of the Council of Europe's new "Companion Volume" (2020). This information has been missing so far. We submitted a similar article to the German Wikipedia, whose compliance rules incidentally are identical with the English ones, which was accepted and published without changes. The reason why we are submitting this here is that an adequate entry in English is missing. We would appreciate, therefore, if you or someone else from the Wikipedia-team re-read our submission and - if necessary - be more specific with respect to points in need of improvement. Thanks. Rcjqffm (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rcjqffm. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Rcjqffm. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Rcjqffm|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is quite off the point. We (my co-author & myself) are neither commissioned nor paid by anyone. It's hard to see how you could come to this conclusion. We have been familiar with the topic for a long time. Recently, we were the two official translators of the CEFR-Companion Volume into German. Our sole interest is to up-date Wikipedia on an important development of the Council of Europe's key document for European language policies. Rcjqffm (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (November 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mcmatter were: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Rcjqffm! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (December 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (December 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Qcne (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (December 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Companion Volume to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 19:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi. We are surprised by your comments. Firstly, our submission is written from an informed but neutral point of view and includes references to 33 academic books and journals and, in addition, includes 8 footnotes with additional sources. Secondly, our submission is not written in the style of an advertisement. We (Jürgen Quetz, Rudi Camerer) are the official translators of the CEFR-CV into German. In this role, we have not only read every line and sentence of the Council of Europe’s recent document, but have been familiar with academic discussions about the CEFR since it was first published in 2001. We are not commissioned or paid by anyone. Neither are we the authors of the CEFR-CV or writing on behalf of the Council of Europe. Our sole motivation is to update Wikipedia content on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and provide a reliable overview of the Council of Europe's new "Companion Volume" (2020). This information has been missing so far on Wikipedia. We would appreciate it, therefore, if we received more specific information about points in need of improvement. Thanks. Rcjqffm (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Companion Volume

Hi @Rcjqffm! I've seen your draft on the Companion Volume and was intrigued. If you're willing, I'd be interested in working on it with you.

Full disclosure: I've never created an article before, and I don't know whether the Companion Volume is currently considered notable by Wikipedia standards. I do know how to cite things and how to check Wiki policies, though!

So if you'd like a contributing buddy, let me know and we'll see whether we can't whip the draft into shape together. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for not answering sooner. I was travelling and simply had no time for Wikipedia. Thank you for offering your help. I would be delighted to co-operate and get this article published at last. I wonder, though, what exactly your help would be, since you say you never created an article before and don't know whether the CEFR Companion Volume is considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Let me point out that it's a key document of the Council of Europe's language policies. Perhaps you could help me understand your offer? Thanks! Rcjqffm (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry for the delay - I didn't realize you had answered. I'll subscribe to this section now to make sure I don't miss any replies.

While I haven't created an article, I have found sources, fixed citations, and tidied up language. It seems to me that you have in effect the bones of the article - the bit that I have no experience in - but that I could help by doing the things I'm already good at. What I am offering is to investigate with you and see whether we can find enough reliable sources to demonstrate that the Volume is notable. It certainly seems to me as though it should be, but Wikipedia only counts things as notable if they meet the notability requirements, so I can't be positive without going to dig up some good sources. Then, if we have that evidence and it seems likely that the article could be accepted, I would go over the article and try to remove promotional language and make sure everything is suitably cited. Doing this is much, much harder if you're involved with and care about the subject of your article. I am uninvolved, so it may be easier for me to spot anything that can't be said in 'Wikipedia voice'. As a layperson I will also stumble over any jargon that might be there, whereas being someone who wrote it you will of course understand every part of it fully!

Of course you would be most welcome to challenge any of my decisions and undo my edits if you so desire; one of the lovely things about Wikipedia is that the information on it is never lost, so no matter what I do you can always decide you don't like it and just undo the whole lot.

I live with chronic pain so responses might be a bit haphazard, but if you think I could be of use to you please do let me know and I'll start rummaging around the internet and see what comes up! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for making you wait again and thanks for your offer to help. I'll be happy to accept. But how exactly would you contribute to the article? Since I am /we have little experience in contributing to Wikipedia: couldn't you simply add, delete, comment on passages of the existing draft? And then, what about your question concerning the notability of our topic? The Council of Europe and its language policy should probably count as important enough to be included in Wikipedia, don't you agree? cf. Wikipedia's article Council of Europe - And equally, your question concerning reliable sources: We listed 34 reliable sources from academic discussions. Only 4 of these were written by my partner and myself - which by the way may indicate that we have been familiar with the topic for some time. To summarise: We welcome your offer to help and are looking forward to co-operating with you on this article. Do let us know how this cooperation can take off. Rcjqffm (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi again! You're absolutely correct - I'm offering to work on your existing draft, since you have so much information already. Here on Wikipedia it's not uncommon to edit drafts other people are working on, but I wanted to make sure my editing would be welcome and that you would know I was interested in getting the article published.

With regards to notability - I absolutely agree that it is something important. If my opinion were the only thing relevant, we'd have no problem! But what I am referring to when I say 'notable' is specifically Wikipedia's requirements: WP:NOTABLE. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we have to find notable sources - reliable, independent, secondary sources which discuss the Volume in some depth. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Volume itself is well-sourced, and that you and your partner know exactly what you're talking about. My only concern is finding sources (like reviews, or papers about it) Wikipedia will accept - but I will start hunting today and see what I can find. If you're aware of any reviews or other responses to the publication of the Volume, those would likely be something we could use, so please do alert me to any you've found or been told about.

I know that the way Wikipedia works can be kind of strange and baffling, especially when you're in an academic field and are used to dealing with very different kinds of sourcing and evidence - I'm from an administrative background and specialized in helping university teachers and students wrangle administrative requirements, which isn't quite the same but I think may be close enough for our purposes here!

Now that I have your permission (thank you!), I will start work on the article today or tomorrow. If you disagree with any changes I make, please do let me know, and remember that we can always revert anything I do so nothing is ever lost. I'll do my best to explain (on the draft's talk page) why I'm doing things according to Wikipedia policies, and we can always make changes so that everyone's satisfied with the outcome. My goal here is to get the article published, because like you I think this is something important and that it deserves to be known by a wider audience. I very much look forward to working with you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)