Jump to content

User talk:Longfamily417

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

Hello, Longfamily417, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 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.
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.
Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Longfamily417, 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:
This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
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.
Bradv 17:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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:
This page states that it is the home page for David Long, but it is really about SageTea, and reads like an advertisement. The footnotes should be in-line rather than all at the end.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv 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:
This company is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sorry.
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.
Bradv 18:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SageTea (April 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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 general guideline on notability 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:
The references listed do not support the notability of the modeling language or modeling methodology, because they are not independent secondary reliable sources. Government documents such as patents are primary sources, and do not establish notability. A paper by the founder of the company is not independent.

This draft lacks a proper lede sentence. The presence of a first line "Articles" is not helpful and shows that the author has not adequately edited the draft.

Please stop making very minor edits to the article and resubmitting. The reviewers understand that the author is in a hurry to advertise his company, but Wikipedia is not for advertising. If the company or the language is notable, it may be necessary to blow up the draft and start over. If the company or language is not notable, no amount of tweaking will help. Repeated resubmissions without addressing substantive concerns are tendentious.

For advice from experienced editors about whether it is worth trying to improve this draft or how to improve it, ask at the Teahouse.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SageTea (April 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv 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:
Please stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote you and your business. This article has now been declined 6 times in 8 hours.
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.
Bradv 20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:SageTea. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. It appears that the author of this draft is repeatedly making minor edits in the hope of finding a reviewer who will accept it into article space regardless of the previously noted issues. This is tendentious and may result in nomination of the draft for deletion or a block. The author was advised to request advice from experienced editors but is choosing to resubmit persistently, which strongly suggests an effort to game the system by getting an easy reviewer.

If you were to be through AFC, you would still have AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Draft:SageTea. Bradv 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SageTea (April 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv 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:
Declined again, as discussed below, on my talk page, and on the author's talk page.
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.
Bradv 21:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SageTea (April 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This draft contains argumentative material in Notable Media Coverage about the Ottawa Citizen that is unrelated to the principal topic, that should be in AFC comments rather than in the article body.

The lede sentence is not a proper lede sentence because it is self-referential, as in "This article describes", which is not encyclopedic.

The author has not made the required conflict of interest disclosure.

The section SAGETEA Model and Performance Analysis References is not in paragraph form.

If this draft is resubmitted again without addressing all of the above points, and without asking for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, a block will be requested for tendentious editing. The reviewers have been very patient so far with what appears to be an effort to browbeat them into acceptance of a conflict of interest draft rather than discussing.

By the way, as an advertising medium, Wikipedia is worth no more than you paid for it.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Draft:SageTea. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. If this draft is resubmitted without addressing all of the questions and without requesting advice from neutral experienced editors, a block will be requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Longfamily417. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Draft:SageTea, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

  • avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
  • instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
  • when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or 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 familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. You have not made the required conflict of interest disclosure. If the Paid editing disclosure is required, it must be made or you will be blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your post to my talk page

[edit]

You, User:Longfamily417, still don’t seem to be paying attention, or, more likely, you are paying attention, but are ignoring most of what is said because your only objective is to get your company article accepted without regard to Wikipedia policy.

You wrote:

Thank you for your recent feedback. I have modified the first line so that it is not self referencing. I also removed the reference to the Ottawa Citizen circulation size. Regarding the performance analysis section, what do I do to put it in paragraph format? Regarding your rejection, what other writing recommendations would you make for it to be acceptable? Perhaps I simply cannot write this kind of article myself? I would have thought the published research would have stood on its own since it was independently reviewed and went through a peer reviewed process. Interested in your advice. thanks, David

You conclude with "Interested in your advice". Why do you say that when it obviously isn’t true, when you have more than once blown off my advice to ask for help at WP:Teahouse? Do you think that saying that you are interested in my advice, when you have ignored it, will make me believe you? Do you think that I am so stupid that I will believe your statement that you are interested in my advice, when it is obvious that all that you are interested in is finding some device for getting your draft accepted?

Normally, with an editor who asks for advice about a draft article, I would go ahead and write up the issue at the Teahouse for the new editor. In this case, I won’t, because you ignored my advice and are trying very aggressively to push the reviewers into accepting your article, but doing so annoys the reviewers. (At least, it annoys me. I don’t speak for the other reviewers, except that I think that one other reviewer is also annoyed.)

You ask how to put a section into paragraph format. You know very well how to put a section into paragraph format. The rest of your draft is in paragraph format.

You wrote: "Regarding your rejection, what other writing recommendations would you make for it to be acceptable? Perhaps I simply cannot write this kind of article myself?" You were cautioned to read the conflict of interest policy, which discourages you from trying to write about yourself, your company, etc. It doesn’t forbid submitting a draft about your company via the AFC process, but it does discourage it. You appear to be precisely the sort of editor who needs to be discouraged from writing about their company, because your insistence on ignoring advice and getting your draft accepted is tendentious and disruptive.

You did resubmit the draft again without addressing all of the points and without asking for help. Are you really looking to be blocked, or do you just believe that you can be so persistent that it will be easier for the reviewers to accept your draft and leave it to AFD than to keep declining it?

If you have any more questions, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Maybe you may find an editor who is willing to help you. Maybe.

Your submission at Articles for creation: SageTea (April 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This draft has been submitted 8 times within 36 hours. Does the author really think that these tendentious resubmissions will wear the reviewers down to the point where it is accepted, or that they will find an easy reviewer?

The references are formatted inconsistently, with an inconsistent combination of in-line footnotes, references in the References section, and raw footnote numbers in the References section. The SAGETEA Model and Performance Analysis References should not be in-line, but the references should simply be in the reference list.

The author has not provided the conflict of interest disclosure, which is required, or the Paid editing disclosure, which may be required.

The author has already been warned that they may be reported for disruptive editing for tendentious resubmissions, which may result in a block. It may also result in nomination of this draft for deletion.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Katietalk 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great feedback, I am working on it ;-) I requested assistance on this Teahouse page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_to_fix_this_article

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Longfamily417. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:SageTea

[edit]

Draft:SageTea, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:SageTea and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:SageTea during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Longfamily417. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

April 2016

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Draft:SageTea. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage is wrong

[edit]

Your userpage says that you'll be getting an ex-employee to edit the article for you. I'd like to point out that's incorrect, because:

  1. The draft is non-notable and so will be deleted pretty soon anyway (within a week)
  2. You'll no doubt be blocked soon, and so getting another editor to edit for you is meatpuppetry which is not permitted. Thus, that user will get blocked straight away too.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote your non-notable stuff. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "meat puppet" seems derogatory. I suggest let the author write in their own words. He is free to do so, I have no other comments, unless asked. Respectfully.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs)

I won't stop using commonly used Wikipedia terminology just because you don't like it.
Honestly, the sooner you're blocked and your company spam deleted the better. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

[edit]

Perhaps you need to reconsider the basic purpose of what a Wikipedia article is. It is an encyclopedia article. It is intended to provide a summary of existing reliably sourced information about a topic, in a formal neutral tone, for the benefit of readers. It should not contain information that is directed to editors, whose mission is to maintain the encylopedia for readers. You have at least twice tried to insert into your draft article, Draft:SageTea, material that isn't about the company, but is for editors. The first was an argumentative statement about the Ottawa Citizen. More recently, you tried to insert the COI disclosure in the article itself. If you don't understand what an article should or should not contain (and an article draft should only contain what the article will contain), ask for advice or help rather than just pushing your effort to get free advertising that will only be worth what you paid for it. If you really don't understand what should and should not be in articles and article drafts, ask for advice rather than guessing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am on day #2 of Wikipedia here. Still learning.

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:SageTea

[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 Draft:SageTea, 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Longfamily417

[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 User:Longfamily417, 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage ban

[edit]

As I do not believe that you are here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, I am indefinitely banning you from my talkpage. Also included in the ban are any editors you ask/pay/hire to write about your non-notable stuff on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say is that the requirements for notability are well understood, and I would therefore request that you consider if the article meets those requirements instead of establishing your decisions based on your "beliefs". I am actually a positive contributor, although somehow we have not yet connected on that. Perhaps we need to work harder on our relationship as fellow academics. I am open to learning from you, and I hope you feel the same. If not, well, what can I do?

ANI Notice

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Here is a reference to Dr. Haghighi (note the spelling). http://ca.ratemyteachers.com/maryam-haghighi/3778268-t[reply]

I checked and her research paper on the SageTea Performance went into the Patent (as was noted by an editor). Longfamily417 (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

from: Erick Shepherd

Thank you for my new badge. I am honoured. I love it! ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfamily417 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 April 2016‎

You're very welcome! --Erick Shepherd (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Longfamily417&oldid=1041082598"