User talk:Ffrewin

Welcome!

Hello, Ffrewin, 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:

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of I-exceed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article I-exceed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-exceed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Variation 25.2 (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton:}...I had made considerable revisions to the page. Could you be kind enough to explain why it was deleted after it was already deleted and restored once? Ffrewin (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Appzillon

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 Appzillon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up to this, I have deleted the page. Sources alone do not make a topic notable. Rather, there must be something significant about the topic that would merit its inclusion in an encyclopedia. There was nothing in the article as drafted that indicated this was the case for the subject of this article. —Verrai 15:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:I-exceed

Don't apologies for being a noob, I was a noob too at one time, and look at me now admin: veteran editor, admin, and all that jazz :) We will walk through this together and if you have any additional questions or need additional clarification you can leave a message and I'll get back to you with an answer.

Ok, first up is your email. All new pages have a button for the veteran editors that reads [Mark as patrolled]. When that button is clicked the computer servers that host the Wikipedia pages are informed that the article has been reviewed by an independent third party (me in this case). Once clicked, the article is considered to have been accepted by the Wikipedia community for follow up action - editing, tagging, deletion, etc. If you got a message saying that I mark a page as patrolled then it means that I have clicked on the button for an article that you have created.

The other part of the email is the "unknown probably deleted page". The automatic notification generated when I clicked on the button results in the page in question being included in the email so that you know which of your pages has been marked as patrolled. When the system can not find the article it usually means that the article has been deleted (typically CSD deletion). That is what happened here.

Now on to the article itself. Your article was deleted following a discussion among the editors here, which took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-exceed. During that discussion, editors agreed that this article was too closely paraphrased from a copyright sourced, read too much like and advertisement, and failed to show any notability as the community currently judges notability. When juliancolton went to delete the article he did so expecting that this afd would be closed as delete, however Ymblanter had relisted the article for additional input in light of what was apparently a large reorganization of the article (new information, new sources, new paragraphs, new images, or some combination of the previous options).

Despite this new information in the article, the community failed to see any difference between the newer version and the original version. As a result, by the end of the discussion the absence of any proof to the contrary resulted in the article being deleted. When you recreated the article to ask juliancolton why it was deleted, I re-deleted the article because comments like this are meant to be left on user talk pages, not the article namespace. This is why your article was deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page based on another page I saw - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbase To be honest, I don't see much difference in the type on content covered in both sources. I do not wish to use the platform as a marketing platform, but then I realized that even words like 'capable' would indicate a marketing pitch. With respect to paraphrasing, I did go through the instances that were marked and worked on the same. I do not understand the comment that says there is no notability of the references because I have listed references that have covered i-exceed and none of those sources belong to us.

I would like to create a page on i-exceed and/or Appzillon without violating any of Wikipedia's guidelines. I'd like to create a page from scratch. Could you give me a reference of page that would serve as a guideline for me to create a fault free page? I'd really appreciate it. Ffrewin (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response, I generally do not make a habit of checking other people's talk pages since I assume they will reply on mine to indicate a response. Moving on - Your best bet now is to recreate the article is the Wikipedia draft space; in this manner, the article can be worked on until it reaches a point where the community feels that it passes the threshold for inclusion here. To do click here, rebuild your article, save it, and the community will provide suggestions and input on how to build the article so that it can remain here on site.

On an unrelated note, I see that no one has bothered to add the Welcome template to your talk page, so I have done so. The template provides some useful reading for new editors and should answer a few questions you may have about editing Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its that red link in the above paragraph that reads "click here", that'll take you to the draft space. I suppose I could move the article there in lew of having it deleted again if you like. That should protect it from deletion while you work on it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate that very much Tom. Please feel free to move the article.Ffrewin (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over when I get a moment, but I work this week and that may tax my time here somewhat. That said, I will do what I can. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tom. Looking forward to your inputs. Ffrewin (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see where the new links overcame the issues of notability at the last AfD, but if you want to move it to the draftspace, TomStar81, I have no issue with that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79[[User talk:Tokyogirl79|...when I look up how makes an article notable I feel I meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I do not understand what you mean by issues of notability. The term is largely vague and I do not understand how I can address the issue. Looking at Wikipedia's 5 pillars too gives me a generic idea of what the nature of an article must be. I only want basic information of my company to be available to public. I have only discussed information that has multiple verifiable third party sources. Could you point out a resource(s), the type of info there with respect to my article and what made in an un-notable resource?Ffrewin (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You used a lot of press releases in the article, such as this one. Press releases are considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources because they are written by the company (or someone they paid to write them). This means that they cannot show notability regardless of what they claim or where they are posted. Other sources in the article were published in places that did not have a good, strong editorial oversight that could be verified to Wikipedia's satisfaction. This last part can be tricky, since being considered reliable usually requires that the source itself be frequently referred to as a reliable source in other outlets (ie, a newspaper comments on another newspaper as reliable or a website is frequently cited in academic papers or books as a reliable source). IBS Intelligence is an example of one of those sources that didn't really have a clear editorial oversight. It also kind of came across like it was a reprint of a press release and if an article is almost entirely a reprint of a press release then it wouldn't really count as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tokyogirl79, this was a copy/paste move from article space to draft spave, something we ordinarily frown on but under the circumstances it appeared to solve the immediate issue of averting the impending deletion. Given the similarities between the two version I didn't see any reason to attempt a history merge here, so I figured we could burn the original article on G-4 grounds and stick with the draft. We have some sources to work with so we can attempt to rebuild the article, although I've no idea how successful that endevour will be given the articles preexisting afd on one side and TOOSOON on the other. Still, hope springs eternal... :) TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79, I used this page Backbase as a reference model while creating my page. It was largely based on press releases. The type of information I'm looking on having on the page are simple and basic ones. Who we are and what we do. IF you feel that parts of it can be omitted to be acceptable to standards, I'm fine with that. I'm just unable to come to an objective solution for the problem. IBS Intelligence has been around for a long time...almost a quarter of a century. I understand your comment on the press releases. I believe there are other links that have the same content. I've tried to use as many references to only add to the notability of the article.Ffrewin (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of the problem sometimes of using other articles as a guideline - the sources on Backbase are unusable and unless I can find sources for the article, it's a pretty high likelihood that the article will be deleted. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:I-exceed logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:I-exceed logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had posted it for a page of the company in the same name. Currently that page has been moved to a draft section where it is being reviewed by moderators. I understand that if the article isn't up, the image doesn't hold ground to stay here. I'm a little unclear on the term non-free. It is a logo that is proprietary to us. The intended use of the image is in the info box of the wiki page of the company with the same name. So what kind of license does the image come under? Ffrewin (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of I-exceed technology solutions

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 I-exceed technology solutions, 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, product, group, service or person 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. Eeekster (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eeekster...I created this page to be a source of general info about us. I have rewritten it several times but I'm unable to see what aspect of the article shows a marketing pitch. In your comment, you have stated that it could be fundamentally re-written in order to become encyclopedic. Initially I was told that words like 'can' too can indicate a marketing pitch. Could you please help me out in creating a page that does not violate any of Wiki regulations? As far as my knowledge goes, I feel I have complied with the guidelines for notability. Ffrewin (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: I-exceed (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tseung Kwan O 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:I-exceed and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tseung Kwan O (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Ffrewin, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Tseung Kwan O (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of I-exceed Technology Solutions

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 I-exceed Technology Solutions, 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 be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of I-exceed Technology Solutions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article I-exceed Technology Solutions is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-exceed Technology Solutions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Euryalus (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Ffrewin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article I-exceed Technology Solutions, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: I-exceed (November 25)

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 the reviewer left was:

First, I'll start by saying Wikipedia is not a business listing or a company PR webhost , this has been deleted twice by community consensus for blatant advertising and that's what this is once again, suggesting you may be a paid employee see please see WP:PAID. Covert paid advertising is and will not tolerated, especially when it's an attempt to restart it when it's been deleted twice before. This is not notable because all of the sources are literally paid advertising, regardless of anything, and there's nothing suggesting otherwise. Everything is only advertising the company as they would advertise themselves.

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:I-exceed and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 04:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:I-exceed

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 Draft:I-exceed, 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 be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It is a rejected submission at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and it has not been edited in over six months. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]