Ava Harper

Welcome

Hello Ava. Glad to see you're still with us. I anticipate OlYeller21 will answer the questions you've raised about how we think it's best to proceed; and if not, I'll do so in the next hour or so. But in short, probably best to edit the version now at User:Ava Harper/AHA. I think there's quite a lot of work to be done; we'll pitch in ... when it's straightened out, we can move it back to be the article proper. But that's all after I find something to eat. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you so much for your help in this Tagishsimon. I do sincerely appreciate it. I understand that a lot of work needs to be done and will do what needs to be done so that the article is acceptable for Wikipedia. I look forward to getting some initial feedback so I can begin editing the article. Thank you again to the both of you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ava Harper (talk • contribs)

I'd start by reading this article: Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. I'll also add a canned warning about signing your posts here (but not in articles), thus: Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• One of the first things to do is to lose the inline links to the AHA website. External links should be at the foot of the article in the External Links section. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these initial steps - I will work on removing the inline links.--Ava Harper (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• The bigger problem we have is over the tone and content of the article. It's difficult to know where to start. Let's take just one example, the Fatherhood Initiative section you've just been playing with. Paragraph 1 of that is, doubtless, true and interesting. But it is not strictly speaking about AHA, but a bout the problem which AHA presumably is positioning itself to do something about. As such I tend to think P1 should be struck entirely. P2 is reasonably good. In the Govt Affair section we find the sentence "helped secure a historic legislative win in Oregon and Washington". We need citations for such a claim ... indeed for both claims, that a) it is historic and b) that AHA helped in any verifiable way. Take the sentence "has worked alongside many of the top political leaders in the nation". Which nation? We're an international encyclopedia. What does "alongside" mean? Is it a weasel word, something we don't like ... see WP:WEASEL and the whole of that page. Are there any 3rd party citations to verify the assertion? Pretty much throughout the whole article, you need to try to distance yourself from the AHA, and ask questions such as "is this strictly about the AHA", "is it absolutely neutrally worked and not in the least puffery". Another sentence fragment: "Children’s Innovation Institute will operate". What on earth is an encyclopedia doing making predictions like that? How on earth do we know? You know. You're AHA. You get to say stuff like that on your own website. We're an encyclopedia. We don;t know that future looking stuff; we lust know what's happened and been document in, ideally, third party sources. Not AHA sources. It will take going through the article fairly ruthlessly, questioning the reasons for the inclusion of each and every element of the article. I'm not sure how quickly I can start to put the time needed into the article. Certainly not before some time next week. Hope this helps somewhat. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, very helpful. I realized I was changing the inline links to references instead of moving them where you asked, so I am undoing those changes and will then do as you asked. Your comment above makes a lot of sense, and I understand what you're asking. If it's ok with you, I might make a change to a paragraph and get your thoughts a few times before I start to get the hang of it. Thanks for your patience.--Ava Harper (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Before you spend too much time putting multiple links to the AHA website in the External Link section, I'd remark that, in general, the expectation is that there's just a single link back to the organisation, and that the organisation's website is well enough structured that the user can find the various sections. Meanwhile I'll be very happy to give you feedback on any changes you make. As we are at the outset, let me make sure you are under no allusions: article with conflict of interest, as this one is, get the very stiffest inspection, verging on brutal. There has to be an encyclopaedic justification for each and every element, and each & every element needs to be verifiable. So, I hope you're in for the long-haul ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Ava Harper/AHA

User:Ava Harper/AHA, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ava Harper/AHA and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ava Harper/AHA during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)