Jump to content

User talk:JNoworyta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Soil2O

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Soil2O, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.geltechsolutions.com/soil2o/about-us.aspx.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Soil2O

[edit]

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 Soil2O, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles 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:

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of GT-W14

[edit]

Hello JNoworyta,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged GT-W14 for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Roches (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Soil2O

[edit]

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 Soil2O, 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. DrunkSquirrel (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of GT-W14

[edit]

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 GT-W14, 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. DrunkSquirrel (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted material

[edit]

I received your request for three deleted articles related to GelTech Solutions. I quickly reviewed that page and it appears to meet the requirements for notability as the company has been covered by independent media, and it is not purely promotional in nature.

The articles were redirected to the article for GelTech. This means that someone replaced the content of the article with a code that refers the reader to the main article. You can see the last versions of the pages here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FireIce&oldid=722409050 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soil2O&oldid=722405580 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GT-W14&oldid=722407323

If you're going to place the content in another article, please take care not to use it in a way that violates Wikipedia's rules on advertising. If you're personally involved with the company you may wish to read the conflict of interest policy as well. Currently the GelTech article has no major problems that I noticed, but the articles that were deleted are promotional. Discussion of the products should be limited to their basic properties and uses. Roches (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd deleted the last one, the GT-W14. It's since been re-created, so here's what was deleted:
"GT-W14 is an eco-friendly formula of super absorbent cross-linked polymers. GT-W14 is developed and manufactured by GelTech Solutions. GelTech Solutions first announced GT-W14 in November of 2014. GelTech Solutions created GT-W14 as a product capable of reducing the hazardous chemical status of certain industrial fluids including oils, solvents, and acids as well as many other various commonly found fluids. GT-W14 also comes in the form of a mat to absorb spills as they happen, and in the form of a pressurized air cylinder to assist in larger spills of toxic materials."
While it's not the most promotional thing I've ever seen, this is written in a press release type style since it's written to hit as many product highlights as possible. There also seems to be a slight emphasis on repeatedly mentioning the company's name, which is also a hallmark of press releases since their purpose is to make sure that the reader/customer goes away with the company's name and the product's highlights. That this article was only sourced with press releases and material from the company website also didn't help.
Roches, I did a little search with their screenname and found evidence to show that they are an employee of GelTech, or at least they were when the articles were written. I'm not going to post the info here since that can be seen as doxing, I suppose, but it wasn't really all that hard to find. JNoworyta, you must disclose your conflict of interest on Wikipedia.
You were never given a warning about this and it's not exactly something that's posted in easy to find locations so it's understandable if you didn't know, so just make sure that you read over the COI guidelines entry to know what you need to do when writing about your employers. My biggest recommendation is that you not make any large edits to the company's page without someone supervising and that if you want to recreate any of the articles, that you do so via AfC. The reason for this is that since you're likely getting paid or otherwise compensated to write these articles (ie, you're an employee and was asked to create them), it's likely that you'll write about the company and their products in an overly positive manner. Sometimes it can be easy to do this without realizing it, especially if you have even a smidgen of marketing education/experience, as writing in a promotional/advertising tone is what PR people do for a living. The other reason for being cautious is because not every topic is notable. For example, a company or their products are not automatically notable because they exist (WP:ITEXISTS) and if the company is notable, then the products do not automatically inherit notability from the company (WP:NOTINHERITED).
Offhand I'm actually still a little concerned about the company page. Roches, from what I can see, the sources are actually fairly weak. Here's a rundown, with explanation for JNoworyta about why they might not be usable.
  1. Bloomberg. This isn't a news story about the company, it's actually a look at their stock. This cannot establish notability, as it can only establish that the company exists and stock can be purchased - neither of which are inherently notable on Wikipedia.
  2. TD World. This is actually a press release, which makes it a WP:PRIMARY source. You can see that it's a press release via it's wording and a search brought up this, which clearly marks it as such. Primary sources can never establish notability because they were written by the company itself. It doesn't matter where they were posted, so you can have a press release published through some pretty major companies and they'd still be considered a primary source because it was written by the company. The same thing would apply for cases where the media outlet accepts money to write about a specific topic, although the majority of sites that do this would not be considered a reliable source since accepting money to write stories ruins their neutrality. Any company or person can purchase marketing packages that include getting people to write about them. In order to show how the company is notable you need to show where people are writing about the company and their products without receiving money or some sort of compensation.
  3. GelTech Solutions. This is the company's website, so it's primary.
  4. New York Times. Now the NYT can be a RS, however this is just a link to a topic term on the NYT, which doesn't show any hits for the company - meaning that as far as I can see, the NYT never covered them. Do not use general search results or a category topic term as a source because not only is that not usable as a reliable source but you cannot guarantee that the result that you saw will come up for others - especially as many media outlets like to archive their materials. Now I did do a search on the NYT website and only brought up this, which is a one paragraph article, which just briefly mentions the company purchasing something. Stuff like this is seen as WP:TRIVIAL coverage for companies since it's so routine and doesn't go into a lot of depth.
  5. CNN. This one is actually pretty good - and this is the type of article you need to find, as it's written by a staff member for CNN, CNN is a reliable source on Wikipedia, and the article is fairly lengthy.
  6. HuffPo. This is OK, although the HuffPo is not always the strongest source out there depending on who you talk to on Wikipedia. This doesn't seem to be one of their blogs, which helps it out a lot, and while it doesn't seem as long as the CNN source, it's still long enough to be OK.
  7. US Forest Service. This is OK enough as a general thing, but this isn't the type of thing that would be seen as a notability giving source on Wikipedia, especially as it'd be seen as mildly superfluous to the article as a whole. (Also be careful of this since you capitalized Qualified Products Lists, making it seem like it is an award or an especially prestigious thing, which it really wouldn't be on Wikipedia - this can cause the edit to be seen as potentially promotional on here. The basic gist of things is that you should avoid anything that makes it seem like your whole reason for being here is to sell your product/company.) Being a qualified product isn't really the same thing as it winning an award, at least not on Wikipedia. It's the type of thing that would be a trivial source at best.
  8. Yahoo. This is another press release, so not usable.
  9. Reuters. This didn't come up, but the article title made it seem like it was a press release and sure enough - it is. Reuters can sometimes be used as a RS, however they cannot be seen as a RS for any press releases since like I said above, it wasn't written by them or by any of the independent outlets they repost. Now in case you're wondering if the PR should be seen as usable since places like Yahoo and Reuters could otherwise be seen as a reliable source (a reasonable question), the reason for the PR not being usable is because these reprints are part of a paid service and are always clearly marked as not written by the outlets and part of a paid service. (This is different from a marketing package where someone would pay for an article to be written about them by the company.)
  10. Soil20 commercial. Another primary source.
  11. Soil20. Another primary source.
  12. Reuters. Another press release, so not independent.
So offhand all that you have in the article that's usable for notability are two sources, one by CNN and one by the HuffPo. This isn't really enough to establish notability for a company, as WP:NCORP is probably one of the toughest guidelines to pass on Wikipedia because you need to show more than just routine coverage. The main thing you should be focusing on would be to find more/better coverage along the lines of the CNN source and post it to the article's talk page with a request to have it added into the article. I'd personally recommend that the article more resemble this version since it gives a cursory overview of the products and company without being extremely promotional. The current version isn't awful, but it does seem a little PR-ish, which isn't helped by the fact that it's almost entirely sourced by primary sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something I just now noticed - it looks like there was an account by the name of Geltechsolutions that was editing the article a few months prior to you signing up. If this account is you then that's a bit concerning since the block notice on the account's talk page does specifically mention the COI guidelines, meaning that if that was you and you signed up with a new account (which is acceptable) then it also means that you didn't read the COI guidelines - which is concerning. I have to warn you - even though this username is neutral, you can still be blocked for making promotional edits and not disclosing your conflict of interest. So I need to stress how important it is for you to read over the COI guidelines - I'll even post the general COI template here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd originally posted that I wasn't going to nominate the page, but the more I search the more it looks like there isn't enough coverage for the company to pass NCORP. Every time I think I've found a RS, I find that it's just a reprint of a press release. I'm going to send this to AfD and see how it fares there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that there are only two sources usable for notability. That's more than most promotional pages have. When deciding the current article was acceptable, I compared it to my experience with other company pages rather than to an unachievable policy-based ideal. There are a lot of company pages on English Wikipedia that probably shouldn't be there, but they are, and I don't think it's fair to apply the real standards to some companies but not to others. Besides, this company has a useful product, not some n-th iteration of the same IT concept and not something fringe. (This paragraph will be used as my AfD contribution.)

That said, no one gets an exemption from the CoI policy. @Tokyogirl79:, do you yourself have a potential CoI, such as working for a competitor? I only ask because your discussion above is very detailed. That could also be explained by a strong desire to reduce CoI and promotional content on Wikipedia, of course. That's my motivation. I don't have any involvement in the industry, but I don't like promotional content on here. Roches (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope. I don't work in that industry at all and I'm studying to become an archival librarian, so no current or future involvement in the type of stuff that GelTech does beyond editing on Wikipedia. And no, I'm not working for anyone. I got into this because I'm one of the admins that deleted some promotional pages created by this user. I became aware that they were trying to recreate these pages and promotional content in general because Jo-Jo Eumerus pinged me to the discussion you started at REFUND. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, JNoworyta. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article GelTech 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am affiliated with the company. I am not and have never been the user: Geltechsolutions JNoworyta (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JNoworyta&oldid=1045420274"