WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE, TO MAKE IT EASIER TO FOLLOW I MAY WRITE IN CAPS (NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS yelling) AS FOR A NEW USER WIKIPEDIA'S FORMAT IS A MESS. (some responses may still be lower case)
I AM LOOKING FOR ASSISTANCE CREATING AN ARTICLE, AND HAVE SWITCHED TOPICS TO RESEARCH & START OVER WITH HOWEVER THE REVIEWS HAVE PROVEN OBJECTIVE DUE TO THE LACK OF CLEAR STANDARDS, HOWEVER I CONTINUE TO PICK DIFFERENT TOPICS AND REWRITE BASED ON FEEDBACK, OR LACK OF.
Hello, TheGremlin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Kukini05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
reply to Kukini HELLO AND THANK YOU, I HAVE ENDEAVORED TO LEARN HOW TO CREATE AN ARTICLE, AND START OVER BY SWITCHING TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC FOR A FRESH START BASED ON EVALUATORS FEEDBACK. MOST RECENTLY THE FEEDBACK WENT FROM "you need more references" TO "the article is over referenced"
AND AFTER REWRITING IN PROSE AS PER REQUEST, I WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT REWRITTEN WHEN IT CLEARLY WAS - SO STARTED OVER ON ANOTHER DIFFERENT TOPIC.
I MADE IT SHORT, SIMPLIFIED, AND USED LESS BUT MORE PROMINENT MEDIA PUBLISHERS - APPARENTLY THIS DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA EITHER.
RESTARTED AGAIN FROM SCRATCH ON A DIFFERENT ITEM UNRELATED TO ANY ONE ENTITY. AS SOMEONE VOLUNTEERING MY TIME, WIKIPEDIA PRACTICES ARE QUITE A DETERRENT TO THE ::GROWTH & ADOPTION OF THE PLATFORM. THE UX WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED DATED YEARS AGO AND STILL HASN'T BEEN MODERNIZED DESPITE THE FUNDING DRIVES.
I CONTINUE RECEIVING SUBJECTIVE FEEDBACK AND AM TOLD THERE SI NO STANDARD IT IS UP TO INTERPRETATION.
THE PLATFORM IS NEITHER INTUITIVE NOR USER FRIENDLY CREATING A BARRIER TO ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS AND WIKIPEDIA'S GROWTH, AS WELL AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A COMPETITOR. WIKIPEDIA COULD A|B TEST INTUITIVE USER FRIENDLY UX TO INCREASE CONTRIBUTIONS & TRAFFIC.
I'VE READ THE POOR REPUTATION ONLINE MODERATORS HAVE DEVELOPED - SPECIFICALLY THEY ARE OFTEN REFERRED TO AS CONDESCENDING TO NEWBIES - HOWEVER CONTRARY TO THIS SOME HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO ME
YOUR INTRO ABOVE WAS HELPFUL IN GETTING STARTED, THANK YOU.
IN THE UNFORTUNATE ABSENCE OF AN INTUITIVE UX IT IS A NECESSARY BAND-AID THAT SLOWS WIKIPEDIA DOWN, AND THERE IS TREMENDOUS UNTAPPED POTENTIAL IF THIS IS ADDRESSED.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment they left was:
Still needs any further available in-depth third-party sources such as news, magazines and journals sources. Thanks for your efforts, Sincerely,
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:CoolIT Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford 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 now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Academy of Financial Divorce Specialists (AFDS), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, TheGremlin!
Having an article 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE LET ME KNOW THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED MAINSTREAM SOURCES REQUIRED. ALSO, THESE TALK PAGES ARE QUITE COMPLICATED COMPARED TO EVERY OTHER FORUM AND CHAT I'VE EVER USED, AND THE 'HOW TO' INSTRUCTIONS ARE EVEN MORE CONFUSING; I CANNOT EVEN SAY FOR SURE I'VE FOUND THEM DESPITE A LOT OF DIGGING AROUND. THANK YOU
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. TheChronium (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK, I WILL SELECT A DIFFERENT TOPIC TO RESEARCH AND ATTEMPT AN ARTICLE ON.
AS ABOVE, I WILL SELECT A DIFFERENT TOPIC AND RESEARCH. THE DESIGNATION HAS BEEN AROUND LONGER THAN THE GOVERNING BODY AND HAS BEEN COVERED REGULARLY IN THE MEDIA PERHAPS A BETTER CHOICE.
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
Hello! TheGremlin,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! LizRead!Talk!20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbrks was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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:CoolIT Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:CoolIT Systems, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
I SPECIFICALLY WROTE LIKE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, USING CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND TRADITIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW. SPECIFICS WOULD HELP, WILL REWRITE, THANK YOU
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Anarchyte was:
This is just a list of achievements and history. This needs to be rewritten in prose form.
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:CoolIT Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:CoolIT Systems, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Anarchyte AS PER YOUR RECOMMENDATION I HAVE COMPLETELY REWRITTEN, ADDED MORE NOTABLE REFERENCES WHERE OTHERS SAID IT LACKED, AND RESUBMITTED. EVALUATORS SAID IT IS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS WHICH IS NOT THE CASE, I REWROTE IT, REMOVED CONTENT, REWORDED AND REARRANGED AS PER PROSE EXAMPLES ANOTHER EVALUATOR WAS KIND ENOUGH TO SUGGEST. I WAS ALSO TOLD THE NEW VERSION IS "OVER REFERENCED"iwanturCAT (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robertsky was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
The comment the reviewer left was:
still reads like an advertisement
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:CoolIT Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:CoolIT Systems, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
EXAMPLE OF WHERE SOME DETAILS WOULD BE HELPFUL BUT WERE NOT PROVIDED. I CONTINUE READING UP AND REWRITING.
Email
I see that you sent me an email but I did not know what it was about. I'm guessing we interacted on some article that you did not identify the article don't have any recollection. Please provides more details and I will try to respond.--S Philbrick(Talk)14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick I WOULD LOVE TO IF IT WAS EASY TO DO SO, IT SHOULD BE AS EASY & INTUITIVE AS 'REPLY' ON A BASIC FORUM, NOT REQUIRING A MANUAL. I'VE FIGURED OUT ABOUT HALF THE HOW TO USE TALK PAGES, HOPEFULLY WIKIPEDIA LEARNS THE VALUE OF SIMPLICITY SO CONTRIBUTORS TIME DOES NOT CONTINUE GETTING WASTED ON ANSWERING QUESTIONS HOW TO DO THINGS THAT COULD BE SELF EXPLANATORY. THANK YOU FOR REPLYING, THE FEEDBACK HAS BEEN HELPFUL IN CONFIRMING THE MESSAGE WAS SENT PROPERLY AND FURTHER FIGURING OUT HOW THE NAVIGATE THE WIKIPEDIA --iwanturCAT (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
June 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:CoolIT Systems. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop repeatedly submitting your draft without fixing the issues for which it is being declined - this is disruptive A S U K I T E 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Content such as "Shit blew up in 2010 when the CoolIT shipments jumped Lebron style from..." must be removed. And the draft is WAY over-referenced. A simple factual statement such as "The OSC Pitzer Cluster followed..." doe not need six references. David notMD (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK, I DID NOT CONSIDER IT A DISPUTE HOWEVER PERHAPS I SHOULD. I'M JUST FOLLOWING THE CURRENTLY PUBLISHED EXAMPLES THAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO MEET YOUR CRITERIA TO BE PUBLISHED, AND HAVE STARTED REFERENCING MORE THAN ONE AS SOMEONE MENTIONED, AS WELL AS MAKING CHANGES AS FEEDBACK IS PROVIDED. THAT BEING SAID i WILL CONSIDER YOUR IDEA OF IT BEING A DISPUTE, BUT I'M REALLY JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE STANDARD IS BASED ON WHAT IS PUBLISHED AND FEEDBACK. I'VE COMPLETELY REWRITTEN THIS ARTICLE AFTER SEVERAL CHANGES.
SOME THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS EASIER:
A SIMPLE REPLY OPTION SIMILAR TO A FORUM OR CHAT TO DISCUSS WITH THOSE SUBJECTIVELY EVALUATING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE
A STANDARD - AFTER READING THE DISCLOSURES, COI, HOW TO'S AND SEVERAL DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS, I'VE ATTEMPTED A FEW DIFFERENT ARTICLES TO LEARN HOW TO GET ONE PUBLISHED. EACH TIME THERE ARE PROBLEMS, AND ONE OF THE EVALUATORS EXPLAINED THE SUBJECTIVENESS THAT NEEDS TO BE NAVIGATED HERE, AND MANY OF THE *CURRENT ARTICLES DO NO MEET WIKIPEDIA CRITERIA, SOME WHICH I FLAGGED IF IDENTIFIED. A STANDARD WOULD HELP BOTH WRITERS AND EVALUATORS, AND FREE UP EVALUATORS TIME.
I AGREE IT IS OVER REFERENCED, HOWEVER I WAS PREVIOUSLY TOLD ALTHOUGH MY SOURCES WERE NOTABLE I NEEDED MORE OF THEM, SO I ADDED MORE NOTABLE MEDIA SOURCES AS THE ONES I HAD APPARENTLY WERE NOT ENOUGH. WHAT IS THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT FOR # OF RESOURCES AND WHERE DOES ONE FIND THIS? SOME ARTICLES HAVE 1 REFERENCE FOR A POINT, OTHERS HAVE 2 OR 3.
I ALSO REMOVED THE 'disruptive' LINE AND REPLACED TO KEEP THE PEACE.
Hello TheGremlin. The nature of your edits 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 very 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 extremely 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:TheGremlin. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TheGremlin|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. Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reply toTheroadislong I'M NOT BEING PAID AS PER YOUR 'IMPRESSION', AND HAVE REWRITTEN THE ARTICLE IN PROSE BASED ON WIKIPEDIA'S SUGGESTIONS FROM Anarchyte'S WHICH YOU SEE ABOVE.
A CLEARER STANDARD WOULD BE USEFUL FOR USERS TO PRODUCE SOMETHING YOU DON'T MISINTERPRET - AS WELL AS AN EASIER FEEDBACK MECHANISM. PLEASE BE MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT IS GIVING YOU THE WRONG IMPRESSION SO I CAN REWRITE.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing 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 when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Chartered Financial Divorce Specialist, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
reply to DoubleGrazing IF THESE MEDIA SOURCES ARE NOT ENOUGH, CONSIDERING THEY SURPASS MANY ALREADY APPROVED ARTICLES - AS WIKIPEDIA SAID NOT TO BASE IT ON JUST ONE - HOW ARE YOU CLEANING UP THE MANY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES CURRENTLY POSTED THAT FAIL TO MEET WIKIPEDIA CRITERIA? - ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE EXCESS FUNDING AVAILABLE FROM ANNUAL ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE SITE HEADER. iwanturCAT (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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:
I am not ab out to accept any draft that means I have to clear out questions, etc, from the text. Please read WP:YFA
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:Coolit Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Coolit Systems, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nomadicghumakkad 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:CFDS and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:CFDS, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
INVESTMENT EXECUTIVE - CANADA'S NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS
IIROC - THE INVESTMENT INDUSTRY REGULATORY ORGANIZATION OF CANADA
ADVISOR MAGAZINE - A LEADING SOURCE FOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR NEWS
THE TORONTO STAR - CANADA'S LARGEST ONLINE NEWS SITE
MORNINGSTAR
FINANCIAL POST [[1]] - *NOTE WIKIPEDIA ONLY APPROVED THIS FINANCIAL POST ARTICLE BASED ON 6 REFERENCES ALL FROM A SINGLE SOURCE 'THE GLOBE AND MAIL' WHICH IS AGAINST ITS GUIDELINES FOR 'MULTIPLE SOURCES', YET YOU'VE REJECTED THIS ARTICLE WITH 9 DIFFERENT RELIABLE REFERENCES. "The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." - WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO FOLLOW ITS OWN RULES, AND APPROVALS SHOULD BE BASED ON THEM. PLEASE FOLLOW THE STANDARD.
Nomadicghumakkad (talk) PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, NATIONAL LEVEL NEWSPAPERS & JOURNALS LIKE INVESTMENT EXECUTIVE & ADVISOR MAGAZINE, MAJOR METROPOLITAN MEDIA OUTLETS LIKE THE TORONTO STAR AND THE FINANCIAL POST, AS WELL AS MORNINGSTAR, MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE AND BLOOMBERG ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES - AND WHY THESE ARE ACCEPTABLE THROUGHOUT WIKIPEDIA ELSEWHERE.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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:Coolit Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Coolit Systems, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
reply S0091 (talk) THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK, THIS WILL HELP ME WITH THE DRAFT; I HAVE RESTARTED THIS ARTICLE TO REBUILD FROM SCRATCH BASED ON FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON WHAT WIKIPEDIA NEEDS, AS THE CRITERIA KEEP CHANGING.
PREVIOUSLY I WAS TOLD THIS ARTICLE WAS UNDER REFERENCED. I CONTINUED ADDING REFERENCES AND WAS THEN TOLD IT WAS 'OVER REFERENCED.' SO FIRST, PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW MANY YOU WOULD LIKE, AND LET ME KNOW HOW MANY 'OVER REFERENCED' IS SO I CAN STAY UNDER THE LIMIT. THE LIST OF ARTICLES COVER ITS 20 YEAR HISTORY.
REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT FOR BEING IN PUBLISHED, RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCES INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECT, I STARTED WITH 7 REFERENCES THAT MEET THIS CRITERIA WHICH IS MORE THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FINANCIAL POST WHICH ONLY REFERENCES THE GLOBE AND MAIL YET LIKE MANY UNDER REFERENCED ARTICLES WAS APPROVED.
I SELECTED THE FOLLOWING:
CANADIAN BUSINESS MAGAZINE - THE LONGEST-PUBLISING BUSINESS MAGAZINE BASED IN THE METROPOLIS TORONTO, FOUNDED IN 1927.
GARTNER - RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMPANY RECOGNIZED AROUND THE WORLD
HPCWIRE - THE #1 NEWS & INFORMATION RESOURCE COVERING THE FASTEST COMPUTERS IN THE WORLD AND THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THEM. DATING BACK TO 1987 HAS MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF WORLD CLASS EDITORIAL AND JOURNALISM
BUSINESS INSIDER - MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN FINANCIAL & BUSINESS NEWS MEDIA OUTLET FOUNDED IN 2007, AVERAGING 375 MILLION MONTHLY WEBSITE VISITORS
CALGARY HERALD - DAILY NEWSPAPER SERVING ONE OF THE LARGEST METRO CITIES IN CANADA WHOSE PUBLICATION STARTED IN 1883
GLOBE AND MAIL
-(THIS WAS THE ONLY MEDIA GIANT USED TO APPROVE THE FINANCIAL POST ARTICLE, ALL REFERENCES WERE ONLY FROM ONE SOURCE WHICH DOES NOT QUALIFY ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS AND WAS APPROVED REGARDLESS. I HAVE AN ADDITION 6 REFERENCES IN THE ARTICLE BEYOND THIS REDUCED FROM OVER 100. REGARDING IT'S CREDIBILITY:
- THE GLOBE IS CANADIAN NEWSPAPER PRINTED IN 5 CITIES ACROSS CANADA WITH WEEKLY READERSHIP OF APPROXIMATELY 2 MILLION IN 2015, IT IS THE NATIONS MOST WIDELY READ NEWSPAPER
WAIT, I MISSED THE 7TH REFERENCE IN EXTERNAL LINKS:
BUSINESS IN CALGARY MAGAZINE - 30 YEAR PUBLICATION WITH DISTRIBUTION TO 28,200 BUSINESSES AND SURROUNDING AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE METRO AREA
SO THE ONLY ITEM MISSING BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK IS ADDITIONAL REFERENCES, HOW MANY OF WHICH ARE NOT MENTIONED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW MANY, OR WOULD AN ADDITIONAL 5 OR 10 DO.
reply updateS0091 (talk) I'VE ADDED MORE REFERENCES HOWEVER THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE FORMAT HAS CHANGED AND I'M CONCERNED I WILL RECEIVE A DECLINE BASED ON 'OVER REFERENCED' SO I'M GOING TO RESUBMIT AND WAIT FOR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK. Victor (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gremlin, it is not solely about the number of references but also the quality of the source and the depth of coverage. For example, a press release regardless of the source that publishes it does not count toward notability because it is not independent. Same goes for interviews, standard notices/announcements (like funding) or anything the company says about itself so you can 100 of those it will be meaningless, even if they are published by a reliable source. Also, you could have a reliable source with independent coverage but its not in-depth. You need all three: reliable, independent and in-depth. Three references that meet all three criteria is enough to establish notability. If you have not already, please do read the the notability guidelines for companies as it goes into detail with some great examples about the type of sources/coverage needed. In addition to notability, the article needs to be written in a neutral manner (see WP:NPOV and WP:WTW) and ideally following general formatting and standards. Also, please do not use all caps when communicating as it is interpreted as yelling (see WP:SHOUT). I do not think that is truly your intent. S0091 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reply updateS0091 (talk)Sweet, thank you for the details this helps explain better than the wikipedia pages I've read previously. I've made a point of trying to screen out press releases for this draft for that reason, so there should not be any, satisfying the independent source criteria, and only used reliable sources. I'll go through the the in-depth description again. I only select topics that are notable wikipedia lacks coverage on, and then pick which references are applicable. Sometimes the media is behind on things, however this does not mean wikipedia needs to lag. I would prefer to not use all caps and considered that, however wikipedia's format is so poor it was one of few options to make it clearer for me to follow the talk page.
Hello, TheGremlin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chartered Financial Divorce Specialist, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
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 edit the submission 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.
Hello, TheGremlin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Coolit Systems, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Linda Cartier, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.crunchbase.com/person/linda-cartier-a484. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
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. I dream of horses(Contribs)(Talk)07:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing feedback as to how to improve the article. Although I shortened and rewrote the article, I see what you were referring to, therefore I have completely rewritten the article again and submitted for review. Additional feedback welcome. Victor (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Hello, TheGremlin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Linda Cartier, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
