User talk:Airteller10

This is Airteller10's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Electreon Wireless (February 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Electreon, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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:Electreon Wireless 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:Electreon Wireless, 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.
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.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Airteller10! 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! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Electreon (February 23)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by 331dot was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This was previously rejected and cannot be resubmitted.

331dot (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot It's important to review articles that have been updated with an unbiased point of view in good faith - the content in this submission has been updated and is "sufficiently notable" - coverage by the NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg, Forbes, European research institutes, Axios, TOI, and CNN is notable coverage - these are notable, independent sources. As an editor for this site, it's your responsibility to review articles without prejudgment - especially those that have been updated since prior comments - and apply consistent, unbiased review standards. In order to apply consistent standards of review, please remove ChargePoint, EVBox, and Electrify America pages from this site, as they do not come close to meeting your standards for sufficient coverage, neutrality of non-promotional language, and notability of sources (I will try to find more related articles that are live and need to be removed and bring them to your attention). Taramasalata-icre I welcome any feedback or comments you have for 331dot as well since you helped and assisted with updating/adding to the submission (thank you, by the way). Airteller10 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need you to tell me what my role is here. I deal with the articles/drafts in front of me. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us, even for years. There are numerous ways that can happen. You are welcome to request to be unblocked (which will be reviewed by someone else) and, once unblocked, can help us identify and address other inappropriate articles. Until then, the only purpose of this page is to request unblock.

Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. That other companies do (if they do) has no bearing on whether this company does. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this draft was rejected(and even got a second bite at the apple) it will not be considered further unless there is some dramatic change in circumstances. I haven't seen that yet. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot This most recent draft was changed substantially, with major notable sources added and language changed - Taramasalata-icre assisted as well. That's a "change in circumstances." You're right - other company articles and operations do not have a bearing on this company - that's why this article - having been changed significantly - should be viewed with an unbiased filter, with an open point of view, and with consistent standards applied, but you have failed to do this just now, unfortunately. How can we get ChargePoint, EVBox, and Electrify America removed so that consistent review standards are being applied? Airteller10 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected once, got a second chance after an appeal, and was rejected again. It's not just me. In any event, before you do anything (including giving your ideas on how to get thousands of volunteers from around the world to do the same thing the same way) you have to get unblocked. Right now that is the only reason you have access to this page. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Happy to request an unblock and point out more inappropriate articles, but we all know editors here don't wish to be proven wrong or have their actions reversed, so unfortunately, it's likely that unblock is not going to happen.

"The draft was rejected once, got a second chance after an appeal, and was rejected again."

Ok. Good. Thank you for stating the obvious.

And then it was revised substantially based on the feedback from the second rejection, with new notable sources added and additional input from other editors. You seem to be conveniently missing this fact and unwilling to acknowledge it. That's ok, you don't have to review each draft article with an unbiased, objective point of view in good faith. But if that's the case, you're not a Wikipedia editor - your an opinion columnist who applies subjective, and not objective, standards.

Let me re-state again so its clear - it was revised substantially based on the feedback from the second rejection, with new notable sources added and additional input from other editors. You seem to be conveniently missing this fact and unwilling to acknowledge it.

Again, that's your prerogative, but it's not in line with this community's standards of objectivity, consistency, and editorial review values. Airteller10 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby acknowledge it. It doesn't change anything. Twice zero is still zero. I am happy to have an extensive discussion with you about how I and other conduct reviews once you are unblocked. If you can convince someone else to unblock you, they may do so without consulting me. I have no problem with that, contrary to your claim. If you aren't going to request unblock, there is nothing more to do here. Good day. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun I looked at the sources that were added yet again and they were not different from what had already been offered, which is what me and others said. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot I am not sure why you are making things up and what you have to gain from doing so. Is the New York Times and Wall Street Journal not notable sources? What about CNN and Forbes, which were added since the last rejection? Or how about the Times of Israel, one of the widest circulated news sites in Israel? What if on top of these, additional research reports from independent agencies were added since the last rejection (they were)? Are these not notable? How about Electrive (added since last time) and Green Car Reports - major clean technology outlets - are these not notable? When you mean "multiple" sources for coverage - what do you mean by multiple? A thousand? ten thousand? a million? What if there was ten million sources with significant coverage - would that be enough? Some sources I am not familiar with and didn't add - it's possible they were added by Taramasalata-icre but I am not sure - if they were, I will let them speak for those sources.

Again, I am not sure what you have to gain by lying to yourself and other reviewers about these sources and coverage not being notable - like I said, it's your perogative, but by doing so and failing to remove pages such as ChargePoint and EVBox (which actually lack significant coverage sources and read like brochure advertisements), you are only proving my point that you are not an objective reviewer but a subjective columnist whose values are not consistent from those that this community promotes. Airteller10 (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly entitled to your views. It's not just me who thinks as I do. If your next comment is anything other than an unblock request, I will remove your access to this page. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Airteller10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am editing an article, trying to improve it, according to the feedback that's been provided. This should not warrant a block. Airteller10 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You did not address the reason for your block. Yamla (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

331dot You are correct that you're not the only editor who thinks like you, though many don't as well and apply objectivity in their review - we know this because the article was actually approved into main space once already, but removed the next day because an editor, like yourself, finds it unacceptable to be proven wrong or contested against with justification. By the way, great deflection above. Theroadislong You identified one source (which I didn't even add) that could be problematic as lacking independence - I agree with you by the way (I didn't add that source), but don't let that source detract from the notability of coverage by the numerous other independent sources named earlier - that would be intellectually dishonest. Airteller10 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reviewing this block request, but it does not address the stated reason for the block, sock puppetry. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem whatsoever in any manner with being proved wrong- when I am- I haven't been in this case as far as I am aware. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Electreon has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Electreon. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Electreon Wireless

Hello, Airteller10. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Electreon Wireless, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]