User talk:Mic4444

July 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text

{{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names.

Thank you. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mic4444 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked due to my former username. My username has been changed so that it is no longer in violation. Can I now be unblocked?

Accept reason:

New name looks fine, unblocked, welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Mic4444, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Draft:Passions Network, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi Grayfell...thanks for the welcome. The Draft page you referenced is what my company's Talk? page used to be, but it was deemed promotional and moved into Draft status until it can be cleaned up. Also, my prior username was PassionsNetwork, which was the page name and is my company name. All of this was created about 6 years ago with no intention on anything being 'promotional', but rather just informative. When the page was moved to Draft, there was a comment that it had an inappriate external links, but the only one on the page (aside from reference articles) was the link to the website, so I removed that from the External Links area. I changed my username so it isn't promotional, and I changed some of the language on the Draft page so that it isn't promotional. At this point, I think the page seems like a good description of my company, and it doesn't seem different from pages for other dating site companies. I'm hoping a neutral editor can review the existing Draft page and discuss the issue with SamHolt6 (who moved the page to Draft) to help me know what I need to change. I am 100% open to making any changes needed, and I've read so many Wikipedia pages to try and figure out what it is about the page that might be a problem. Since it seems like an informative page and not a promotional page to me, do you have any advice on how I can get it sufficiently cleaned up so that it can be made into a live page again? Thanks! Mic4444 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See below. I strongly disagree that the article is neutral, but do not have the time to fix it right now. Do not make any more changes to the article. Propose changes on the article's talk page and wait for neutral editors to assess them. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell has already responded and I took a look at the article now in draft. I think if someone were making the argument that this company or network of web sites was notable today, it would be good to see some references that are less than five years old. The current draft reads as somewhat promotional, but not as over-the-top promotional as some writing I've seen proposed in drafts. But, aside from the Conan O'Brien quip, it seems promotional in the sense of a business directory listing. We don't get any sense of why the company should be considered notable. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks jmcgnh! I have some homework to do, but your comments related to the old references and needing to work on why the company is 'notable' gives me some very specific areas to focus on. There have been more recent articles, so I'll do some research to find them. There have also been recent podcast interviews. I'm hopeful that one of the few growing dating sites that is 14 years old is also a point in the 'notable' column, since there are very few dating companies that can make that claim. Again, thanks for taking a look and giving some direction. Mic4444 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Jmcgnh: I'm not going to debate whether or not the article's notable, but why does having references from the last 5 years matter? Doesn't that violate both WP:NTEMP and WP:RECENTISM? There are plenty of articles about defunct technology and companies. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePuppers: Thanks for looking things over too. Based on the feedback I'm seeing, it seems like a good idea to clean up the old articles that may no longer be linkable since websites often move/archive/delete very old content, while also updating/adding to the reference list with some more recent articles. After reviewing WP:NTEMP it would seem like the site/page should be notable indefinitely once it had crossed that threshold. But, considering the page in question has serious issues that need to be addressed and whether it is notable is up in the air at the moment, it seems prudent to have a combination of old and new articles. Hopefully, this will help make the case that the article is notable. I clearly have a lot to learn, but it seems like combining the input from jmcgnh and yourself will help, so thanks again!Mic4444 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePuppers: I tried to carefully say that in a way that was not straight up contrary to NTEMP, a policy I am aware of. There's also a tension between NTEMP and the gradually increasing stringency of NCORP. If this draft is to go anywhere, someone is going to have to spruce it up. Adding new references would certainly help. And finding new references is something Mic4444 is in a position to do, whether we think they're allowed to edit the draft directly or not. My reading is that COI editors are allowed to edit drafts, but if they simply posted some more up-to-date notability references on the draft talk page, I for one would be willing to give the article a bit of a workover to update it and to decrease the sense of promotionality. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: That's fine, I was just making sure - having everything updated is also quite important, and a lack of notability can be argued after an article has been here. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with paid editing

Hello. I see you're trying to fix the problems with Draft:Passions Network. Perhaps a brief explanation of what the problem was will help.

The article was created by an editor (Bernie44) who openly accepted payment for his work, which I believe you already know since it's likely that you paid him. As a glance at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia will show, paid editing has damaged Wikipedia in the past, and continues to damage it now. For these reasons, the project has very strict rules about paid editing, and the community has had a difficult time agreeing on how to handle this. Without getting bogged down in the details, Bernie44's behavior prompted a review of many of the articles he created or heavily edited, and many of them were found seriously lacking. The article about your business was one of them. Promotional article may appear superficially neutral while still containing serious structural flaws and inappropriate levels of detail.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. My suggestion would be to first review the above links and confirm here on this page that you have read about editing with a conflict of interest. Second, review WP:CORP, and third, propose specific, reliably sourced changes to the article's talk page Draft talk:Passions Network. Please avoid editing the page directly, as this was a major reason Bernie44 was blocked. Obviously nobody is obligated to help you with this since we are mostly volunteers, so be patient. Grayfell (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the blunt straightforward response. I did hire a company 6 years ago to create an informational page and that is really all I want/wanted the page to be. I will read through the links you've provided and try to figure out what portions of the page are still not neutral. When I modified the Draft page directly earlier, it was because I didn't think anyone but editors could/would see it, so I was trying to fix/remove language that was not in keeping with Wikipedia's rules. In any case, I feel duped by the individual who created the page 6 years ago, as I thought his company was legitimate and I thought the page was acceptable (especially since there have been a number of modifications by editors over the years fixing small issues, but never implying the page was inappropriate). In any case, I will do whatever is needed to fix the problems. I'll read the links you've provided and re-review competitive pages to see how they are able to describe their companies in a neutral manner while my page seems to set off red flags right and left. Thanks again, as I'm not well versed with Wikipedia and have obviously made some mistakes and have some things to learn. Mic4444 (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell I have reviewed the links you referenced regarding COI and CORP. Since I'm not being paid, and will only be fixing/placing information into some area for neutral editors to review/approve/deny, I think I should be fine regarding the requirements of both of those. My first focus will be to fix or remove any broken reference links already in place and then add additional 'reliably sourced' reference links. Considering the original links were from highly recognized media (ABC News, Wired, Business Insider, etc.), I think they will help in the process to verify the article as 'notable' as I think they would be considered 'reliably sourced' (although old), so I'll be looking to add to them with additional links. Quick question. You stated that I should not 'edit the page directly' (and my question shows just how confusing Wikipedia is for me). The question is...where do I place the changes I am recommending editors review without my editing the page? Obviously, I don't want to click the 'Edit This Page' tab, but when on the page itself, there is an Edit link next to each section, and I think it is equivalent to the 'Edit This Page'. (Plus the reference list isn't listed, there's just code saying 'squiggle squiggle Reflist squiggle squiggle' (I had the actual code there, but it broke my paragraph, so I changed it). I'm looking for the place to add information and notate things like 'This link X is broken and should be replaced with this link Y' and a place to add the new reference articles for review. Can you tell me which tab to click so that I don't inadvertently edit the page directly, but rather deposit new information into an area where it can be reviewed for addition to the page? I realize how simple this is for you guys, but for me, it's like a maze, even with me reading numerous pages. And considering the thin ice I think the article is on, I want to be extra careful that I submit information into a safe area where it is clear I'm not trying to change things directly myself. Thanks.Mic4444 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, comments should be posted in chronological order to avoid confusion and to preserve a record of the conversation. This is explained at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

Editing a section of an article is still editing that article. The editing links for sections are strictly a convenience.

Articles on Wikipedia come in pairs: "Page" where the content is, and "Talk:Page" where the content is discussed. As an arbitrary example, there is the article at Quark (Star Trek), and there is a talk page at Talk:Quark (Star Trek) where changes to this article could be discusses. For most users on a desktop/laptop, the link to the talk page is at the very top of the page as a tab next to the word "article".

'Drafts' follow the same pattern, because they are intended to become articles. Draft:Passions Network has a talk page, which I linked above: Draft talk:Passions Network. It's mostly empty now, but it's a good place to propose changes to the draft/article. There should be a link along the top which says "New section".

User pages are also set up in pairs, although with different purposes. This page you are reading is a talk page to your personal user page, which is here: User:Mic4444. It's a red link, because you haven't created anything there (and you don't have to create one if you don't want to). Wikipedia:User pages explains these pages. Generally, you can edit another user's talk page (which you've already done) but you shouldn't edit another user's 'user page' without a very good, specific reason.

As for references, you may find Help:Referencing for beginners useful, but feel free to just copy links to the talk page with an explanation of the changes you want made. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell Thanks. I think I created a new section on my user talk page with reference links for this Draft page. Not sure I did it right, but I'm hoping so. It's recommendations for changes to the existing references, and it's a list of potential new references to show the article/page/company is still an active growing company. I included some recent podcast interviews as reference links too. Not sure if they fit within Wikipedia, but considering they are not paid advertisements, but discussions on what the company is, how it works, etc., they may be a fit. They may be considered promotional for those very same reasons though. I'm still unsure where 'this is what the company does' crosses the line from informative to promotional, so I'll leave it up to you or whichever editors give it a look as to what is/is not acceptable. Hopefully some of the recent reference suggestions will help the page move back to 'notable' status, as they are from large companies doing write-ups on niche dating sites (i.e. ABC, The Independent, Forbes, Fortune, etc.). Thanks.Mic4444 (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell Ugh...I just clicked through to the section I created and it isn't on my user talk page (which is this page...DOH!). It's on the Draft talk page in a new section, which I realize is wrong/stupid. The link to see what I added and where it is is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Passions_Network#Potential_changes_for_the_References_section Sorry! I thought I was in a different place when I clicked 'new section' and only just realized I put that stuff in the wrong place. Anyway, at least I didn't edit the page when adding the info., so I guess that is a minor win in my inept attempts to get the hang of Wikipedia. Thanks.Mic4444 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More new potential references with a primary, if not exclusive focus on Passions Network

Due to concern that my prior 'new' references did not have enough of a focus on Passions Network, I am adding some more that hopefully will address that issue).

(The Podcasts were almost exclusively focused on Passions Network, but I'm not sure if podcasts count as references.)

1) (Rachel - Owner of MarryMeInk) http://marrymeink.co.uk/2012/05/25/animal-print-ink-engagemen/ (Marry Me Ink, 5/25/12)

-Article on a couple who met on Tattoo Passions, a Passions Network site, who fell in love & got engaged. (No 'non-Passions Network' related dating sites mentioned)

2) (Douglas Smythe) http://howtogrowamoustache.com/online-dating-for-moustaches/ (How To Grow A Moustache, 5/5/13)

-Feature Interview on a new site within Passions Network (at the time), but Passions Network is also highlighted

3) (Ellen McCarthy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110601073.html?noredirect=on (Washington Post, 11/7/08)

4) (WeVorce Admin) https://www.wevorce.com/blog/have-a-very-particular-interest-go-here/ (WeVorce, 1/9/17)

- Singular blog post within a Divorce site (not a blog site) explaining Passions Network and a number of sites within it

5) (Katie Cincotta) https://www.smh.com.au/technology/a-sense-of-belongings-20111012-1ljmu.html (Sydney Morning Herald, 10/13/11)

- While the article is about unique online communities and references different companies, the only online dating example is Passions Network

6) (UPI NewsService) https://www.realitytvworld.com/news/online-dating-service-courts-trekkies-1009021.php (RealityTV World, 6/30/06)

7) (Hit The Road Jack) https://www.alltruckjobs.com/blog/lovers-lane-online-dating-just-for-truck-drivers/ (All Truck Jobs, 5/1/17)

- Blog post on a Trucker website (not on a blog site) explaining Passions Network, and the Trucker Passions site within it

8) (K.Thirumalaisamy) http://www.shanlaxjournals.in/wp-content/uploads/sijash_jan2018_bharathiaruniversity.pdf (January 2018) Section 28 - Section Title: INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES ON COLLEGE STUDENTS Detailed Analysis of Social Networking Sites with a discussion of the types of social networking & effects Page 161: Reference to Passions Network as one of four companies within the 'Dating Social Networking' category

9) (Edward B) https://mozyrko.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/77-failed-startup-post-mortems.pdf (October 2014) Discussion of startup failure 'Tigerbow' (page 302) which had integrated with Passions Network to allow members to send actual gifts

10) (Salvador Sánchez Alonso, Sergio Padrino Recio and Juan A. Prieto Rodríguez) http://www.sociedadyutopia.es/images/revistas/36/36.pdf (2010) Spanish analysis of Technology and Social Networks. Passions Network referenced in section discussing 'Surveillance and risk control in social networks' (Page 175-176) [Passions Network listed alongside peer networks - Facebook, LinkedIn, OKCupid]Mic4444 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11) (Philip Kotler & Gary Armstrong) http://digitalmarketing.temple.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/10/Consumer-Markets-and-Consumer-Buyer-Behavior.pdf (October 2015) Passions Network referenced as example of niche marketing on page 145 (Chapter 5 Consumer Markets and Consumer Buyer Behavior )Mic4444 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12) (David C) http://www.ldsdatingsites.org/lds-passions.html (2018) Review of LDS Passions within Passions Network, with a description of eachMic4444 (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13) (Leslie Katz) https://www.cnet.com/news/must-love-puppies-walks-on-beach-robot-babies/ (CNET, 2/14/11) Passions Network and a variety of the sites within Passions Network are referenced. No other online dating network/site referenced. This was not due to any interview or discussion with me, but was solely an analysis piece done by the journalist.Mic4444 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14) (Shannon Proudfoot) https://www.pressreader.com/canada/windsor-star/20080621/282647503276222 (June 21 2008) 10 year old article showing Passions Network at forefront (even then) of the divergence from mainstream to niche dating sites. First company of 2 or 3 referenced detailing the move towards niche dating.Mic4444 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15) (A Saunders) http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2009/02/14/0_NICHE_DATING.ART_ART_02-14-09_A7_GFCTNBD.html (Colombus Dispatch, February 14, 2009) 9 Year old news article on the rise of niche dating sites and the variety of niche sites, and how people were actually meeting on highly niche sites. Passions Network and a number of the sites within it discussed as part of the unique nature of some niche dating sites.Mic4444 (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16) (Susan Carpenter) http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/09/news/wk-cover9 (LA Times Cover Story, Feb. 9, 2006) 12 year old article explaining the change within the online dating market and discussing Passions Network's 100 ad supported niche dating sites (pg 2)Mic4444 (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17) (Melanie Herschorn) http://melanieherschorn.com/media/articles/finding-your-niche-the-evolution-of-cyberdating/ (Dissertation, December 30, 2010) Dissertation outlining the growth of online dating and the evolution of niche dating within it.

19) The current reference link #5 on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Passions_Network page: http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2011/02/10/made-in-the-usa-from-trekkies-to-pet-lovers-an-online-dating-s/ is no longer an active link as it has been deleted by AOL over time. Can someone edit the page to remove that link?

Aside from the above additions #17-#19, I'd like to request an editor re-evaluate #3 on the origianal page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Passions_Network (i.e.) http://www.businessinsider.com/15-niche-dating-websites-2012-3?op=1 as it includes a significant amount of information focused on Passions Network, along with interviews of members within the network. Separately, I'd like to request a review/re-review of #13 above as it is an article focused exclusively on Passions Network without any interview or discussion with me prior to or after the article. Thanks.Mic4444 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably willing to do some more work on this project but my short assessments that last time seem be taken the wrong way. It does not matter that other dating sites are mentioned. It does matter whether Passions Network is being covered, as opposed to a focus on one of Passions Network's many websites. In order to count as a notability reference for Passions Network, I am looking to see if the article covers Passions Network itself, as a business enterprise, as an organization, and goes beyond "mere mentions". I realize the temptation is for journalists to focus on the "niche-ness" of some of your customers. But if I don't see a solid couple of paragraphs about Passions Network's history or current business advances or competitive position or something that I can recognize as in-depth coverage, I simply can't count that article as a notability reference.

Many of these reference are in places that we commonly accept as reliable sources and they can be used to fill in some of the details in the eventual WP article. But the fundamental basis for the WP article has to be a summary of what the notability references say – and so far we haven't found any. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: Thanks for continuing to help. I must admit that I'm running out of options. My company has been mentioned in countless articles in major magazines of consequence, PDF research papers, interviews (in magazines, newspapers, podcasts and a live streamed interview on Huffpost Live...although it's no longer available video). I don't know that anyone ever wrote a comparison/analysis piece without interviewing me, as they wouldn't have had access to member numbers (so the lack of being able to count articles that interviewed me as valid in determining notability has made this trickier). Typically, whatever is written about Passions Network focuses first on a specific niche site and then details that Passions Network contains X number of other niche sites with X number of members and X features. That has just been the way I have seen things written year after year for 14 years, from Business Insider to Wired to CNET. Just my luck. I'm still digging, and found someone who did her dissertation on 'Finding Your Niche: The Evolution of Cyberdating' https://search.proquest.com/openview/1ddfac461b488f27961a23893b05edfa/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y The reference to Passions Network isn't in the first 6 pages avail. for free, but after digging through Google Books, I found the full article: http://melanieherschorn.com/media/articles/finding-your-niche-the-evolution-of-cyberdating/ There's only a few paragraphs referencing Passions Network, but it is yet another example that my company was/is being referenced repeatedly within the online dating social networking realm. Hopefully, inclusion within a dissertation on Niche Cyberdating will help with notability. Separately, and this may be beating a dead horse so to speak, and although it included an interview with me, I always thought the article in Business Insider that also interviewed two members within Passions Network was substantial (and I'm hoping upon a re-read, it might be considered 'notable'): https://www.businessinsider.com/15-niche-dating-websites-2012-3?#passions-network-why-join-one-personals-site-when-you-can-join-a-network-of-over-200-sites-5 (My understanding was they did have someone fact check the article against publicly available information.) Again, I appreciate you reviewing things as I dig through Google looking for the gem that will make it clear the company is worthy of a position in Wikipedia. Keeping my fingers crossed the dissertation is solid enough to get this across this particular part of the finish line (although I know other work is left to do). Thanks!Mic4444 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC) - Changed the way I tagged jmcgnh for this paragraph and the following, because I think I did it in a way (previously) that did not bring my request to jmcgnh's attention. Still learning the ropes on how to tag things appropriately. Thanks.Mic4444 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: I forgot that I had also found this site and while I don't particularly like the name, it has some interesting options that might help meet certain comparison criteria: http://www.giveyourhandabreak.com/sites/passionsnetwork/ If you look below the general synopsis you will find a COMPARE section that allows you to see how Passions Network visitors compare to other online dating sites based on a number of criteria (i.e. age, education, gender, etc.). There's also some other sections specific to Passions Network, but since comparisons to other sites seems to be of importance, I thought I'd list this site as well. Despite the crass name, it does seem to have a surprising amount of data in it. Thanks!Mic4444 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmcgnh: I was informed by another editor that if the Draft page is not edited within 6 months, it's automatically deleted, along with the original page. Since my goal is to continue to work to find supporting articles, would you be open to some minor edit on the page every now and then, just to 'reset the clock'? I'm confident that with enough time, I will eventually find something to support the article, if the above suggestions are still insufficient. Thanks.Mic4444 (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mic4444: In addition to minor edits, if your draft does get deleted (per the speedy deletion criteria[[WP:G13|G13), then you can get it back at WP:REFUND. Also, you can send users a notification by using the template {{Ping|LittlePuppers}} (with the correct username) or linking to their user page. LittlePuppers (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LittlePuppers: Yikes. I didn't even know about the speedy deletion option, but glad to hear there is a way to address it if it were to happen. Hopefully any editor following all of this will see that I'm not trying to game the system, and that I am really trying to find strong new source material that will help justify notability for the original article. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that at least one of the many references I've found since my company page was taking offline will help to offset the negative taint it has associated with it by virtue of the way it was originally created and entered into Wikipedia. Thanks for filling me in on yet another interesting feature in Wikipedia, even if it is a bit of a scary one from my position.Mic4444 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]