User talk:Milosheff

Welcome!

Hello, Milosheff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as The Bronx Times, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Bronx Times

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 The Bronx Times, 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 "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, you can place a request here. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at The Bronx Times

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for taking the time to create a page here. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the deletion tag you removed from The Bronx Times. Please do not continue to remove the deletion tag, instead, if you disagree with the deletion, you can follow these steps:

Go to the page by clicking this link. Once there, select the button that says Click here to contest this speedy deletion.
This will take you to the talk page, where you can make your case by explaining why the page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. For further help about the deletion, you could contact the user who first placed the tag or a highly active user who is willing to help with deletion. This message was left by a bot, so please do not contact the bot about the deletion. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your article talkpage note, the article on the Bronx Times-Reporter is short and devoid of promotion. It's also poorly referenced. The article you keep re-posting is an advertisement, written in the first person, and is in no way an encyclopedia article. Please reconsider your approach to writing an article for an encyclopedia: it should have no promotional content at all. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Milosheff. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the latest version: it's still promotional, but it was better. I've prevented re-creation for the time being to allow you to develop a sourced, policy-compliant article in your userspace. Please use User:Milosheff/sandbox to write an article that can be reviewed there. Please read the policies noted above, and if you're affiliated with the subject, please exercise caution in introducing any promotional content. Acroterion (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't insert ™ or the like: does your newspaper do that when referring to Coca-Cola™ or Pepsi™? Neither does Wikipedia. As editorial content, there is no requirement to do so, and it violates Wikipedia's manual of style. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your talkpage message. You should write a simple, factual, verifiable description of the publication, giving plain, unadorned, encyclopedic data on establishment, market, circulation and the like. All such data should be supported by references, and the publication's notability must be established by reference to third party-sources that have taken significant notice of the publication. As stated repeatedly above, there must be no promotion. None. Not even a little. If you can't write about the subject without promoting it, you should avoid the topic.Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising. Please use the sandbox link I provided to write a draft, bearing in mind that advertising is unacceptable even in userspace. Acroterion (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why does this place not have anormal messaging function?! it is in my sandbox.

what do you mean there is nothing notable about it - it is the only edition covering the borough of Bronx exclusively that is up 24/7 online on the most relevant to the borough domain name Bronx.com?! When i had this written, the other person said it was a promotion.

Bronx.com is as relevant to The Bronx Times and Bronx, NY as is Boston.com to the Boston Globe and Boston, MA. When people think Bronx, they go to Bronx.com for the information we provide. Yo u can go to archive.org and see how long I have been doing this, despite the fact that nthere is no "notable" verification of what I do by anyone - nobody cares about the Bronx or my newspaper, however that does not mean I do not exist - see archive.org for Bronx.com.

our name is "the bronx times" 3 words! our readers go directly to Bronx.com - this is the value of a premium domain name - feel free to read about it. and if you search, search on general search, which is what everyone does. Our name is not ïn the news", it is "the news"as it delivers it.

Milosheff (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC) i use edit story to respond to you... maybe W should allow people to communicate better than this..[reply]

how is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx_Times-Reporter better than mine???

No idea what "edit story" is I fear. I suspect it is the new all singing and dancing visual editor, which I hate and do not use.

The article you quote is not exactly excellent as you can see. The sole real difference is that it has a reference from the Library of Congress. That reference is, of itself, sufficient to allow that article to remain. You are correct to be analytical and it's the right question.

One thing that may perplex you is that Wikipedia treats every article as unique. No one article sets a precedent for any other article. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Fiddle Faddle 15:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milosheff (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC) there is nothing else I can come up with. while there are no precedents, there should be equal to all standards. i dont know what else to say or do, but this experience reminds me of the censorship I had ""the pleasure"" witnessing coming from an ex communist country. where is the freedom of speech?[reply]

I fear Freedom of Speech is not what an encyclopaedia is about. I am entirely sympathetic with your thoughts, but there is no way of changing the behemoth that is Wikipedia. There is no real censorship here, but it can be darned hard to get an article to 'stick' at times. Fiddle Faddle 16:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trick to writing articles...

I've seen you have a baptism of fire with The Bronx Times. I wish your intro to Wikipedia had been easier for you. Every editor who enjoys editing here has made mistakes, so don't, please, be disheartened.

Nothing is urgent, though it does feel it sometimes. What I hope you will do is to get a cup of tea or coffee and read this essay which some folk have found helpful. There's a fair bit of reading. Then have a go at putting it into practice.

Wikipedia is a strange place. It will never bend to the way one thinks it ought to work, it works the way t works. If you like I'll be happy to give you a hand with advice on creating the article. Fiddle Faddle 14:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look at your sandbox and this is a great improvement. There are some things missing, though. Thsi is easy stuff to work on:

There is nothing to say that The Bronx Times is notable yet. At present it is just another newspaper. WHat is notable about it? Assert the notability clearly, but in neutral language. Then cite that notability form what we term a reliable source. Doesn;t matter if you get the format wrong, we'll help with that. Fiddle Faddle 14:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean there is nothing notable about it - it is the only edition covering the borough of Bronx exclusively that is up 24/7 online on the most relevant to the borough domain name Bronx.com?! When i had this written, the other person said it was a promotion.

Just moved your comment down sop we can converse in the right place. Hope that is ok with you.

You have just hit on a notable item, that it is the sole organ covering the entire Bronx. That is notable without being promotional. Now you have to find a way of verifying that statement.

The domain name is interesting, but not really relevant, and the fact that it is online 27/7 is common with all web sites. Neother fo those are particuarly useful for the article, though useful for the BT readers Fiddle Faddle 15:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsy 27/7 WOULD be notable! Sorry for typos Am on floaty painkillers! Fiddle Faddle 15:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One area where you will have trouble is in finding citataions for the organ. this search shows nothing hugely significant. That's ok. Like I said nothing is urgent. There's plenty of time to research this. Fiddle Faddle 15:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this down. P{lease work out how to use the threads here.

Bronx.com is as relevant to The Bronx Times and Bronx, NY as is Boston.com to the Boston Globe and Boston, MA. When people think Bronx, they go to Bronx.com for the information we provide. Yo u can go to archive.org and see how long I have been doing this, despite the fact that nthere is no "notable" verification of what I do by anyone - nobody cares about the Bronx or my newspaper, however that does not mean I do not exist - see archive.org for Bronx.com.

I understand you from your perspective, but this is Wikipedia ad it just doesn't care. You put your heart and soul into something and are quite reasonably surprised that Wikipedia says "irrelevant" (well I said it, but others will say the same). What you need to do is to se[arate the things that are encyclopaedic form the things that are important to you. This is anothe reason why it s hard as heck to wrote about one's own work. Fiddle Faddle 15:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please use THREADING here We're taling in this section. and please use ~~~~ to sign your messages.

The domain is a pleasing attribute of your paper, but it is not, of itself, notable in a Wikipedia sense. IN the same way IBM.com is not notable for IBM. Fiddle Faddle 15:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make my competitors recognise my existence for the sake of it. I do exist regardless whether or not they choose to talk about me. Again - please see Archive.org and type Bronx.com in the middle (Wayback Machine) and see we existed then as we exist now Dates with sapshots have blue bubbles on them. See 2009 for example. See the thousands of articles published and number of times thy have been read, otherwise you do not allow me to exist, while I clearly do exist.

The issue isn't existence, we can see that for ourselves and nobody denies it. It's notability. Everybody exists, but that doesn't mean that an article about them meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Wikipedia isn't a social media platform, it has editorial standards, and they require that a subject be verifiable using independent published references (which means that the Wayback Machine is well and good, but it's not a published, third-party reference. Acroterion (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little more advice

Sorry for the hiatus, I had some real life obligations to take care of. In looking around for potential sources to help you out, I note that the Facebook page for Bronx Times & Bronx Times Reporter describes the subject of your article as "a citizen blog calling itself the Bronx Times and is not affiliated with our newspaper." That's their opinion, of course, so we take it with a grain of salt. Still, the assertion does send up a red flag, and any article must deal with potential confusion on who the subject really is.

I'm of the general opinion that the subject is eligible for an article in Wikipedia, provided it can be supported in terms of notability, and provided it's written in a neutral, detached manner. Notability in Wikipedia terms is based entirely on how and how much the subject has received notice from reputable publications that have no affiliation with the subject, which have reputations for reliable fact-checking, and which are of significant stature. That's what keeps Wikipedia from being spammed by every garage band, website, bit-part actor, dry cleaning store, etc. That's the threshold that must be crossed. You've asserted notability, and I take your word for it, but you need to back it up.

The subject must be notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Per WP:NOTE, subjects are eligible if they've received significant notice in third-party publications with a reputation for fact-checking, preferably of a non-local nature. The non-local notice tend to be relaxed in places like New York, Tokyo or London: if it's notable enough for those places, it's often enough. Has the newspaper/online news source/blog been profiled and discussed by other papers, magazines or online media? Has the issue of the name been discussed elsewhere? Remember that Wikipedia will report on all the issues that are verifiable in reliable sources, and sometimes that may not be to the liking of the subject if some of them are negative. You will not have control over the article. Wikipedia is not an outlet for free speech: it's an encyclopedia and it deals in verifiable facts. Please read WP:FREESPEECH for more on that topic.

You have a very basic outline in your sandbox that is more or less non-promotional; you'll need to flesh it out with references from third-party sources. A link to the site's main page is OK, and the site can, to a limited extent, be used for verification of basic facts, but it provides no support for notability. Acroterion (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: While the article in its present form isn't subject to deletion as advertising, it would probably be deleted on grounds of non-notability. You'll need to separate promotion from a reasonable discussion of notability, which requires reference to independent sources. In general, we would want it to be sufficiently well-sourced to withstand a formal deletion debate, in which many editors take part in the discussion. Such discussions can be unsparing, and it's much easier and kinder to sort out the issues now, in userspace, than to try to deal with it at Articles for Deletion. Independent sources are the key. Acroterion (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion has wise words. I am not expressing myself desperately well today, so will bow out. The paradox is that we all want articles on all possible notable topics, but we cant have them without a properly cited assertion of notability. I am very keen that TBT has its own article. IT just has to be the right neutral tone and cited as well as can be. We truly are on the side of creating articles, even when we suggest that something be deleted. Fiddle Faddle 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 17:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox draft

It looks much better. I've edited it a little bit to take out some lingering marketing prose ("in the heart of", "24/7") that isn't usually seen in an encyclopedia. I'm still concerned that you've got no independent coverage - it's still self-sourced, which won't stand you in good stead if someone has concerns about notability. I doubt it would withstand a formal deletion debate. In any case, I'm removing the create-protection, and if you wish you can move it into article space. I'd advise you to use the "move" function rather than copy-paste into an article title. It's less likely to be summarily deleted if it's moved. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns, but am wishing it bon chance. Fiddle Faddle 09:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Bronx Times

The article The Bronx Times has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —swpb^T 16:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my online newspaper that I put together since 2005! How dare you offending and discriminating against the work I do keeping people from Bronx informed about their borough! What is not true on my summary? Who are you people?! Milosheff (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding conflict of interest editing

Hello, Milosheff. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article The Bronx Times, 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest? When stating facts? Come on. If I am Peter Milosheff, and say "I am Peter Milosheff", where is the conflict of interest. Do not be ridiculous please. Nothing I have said in my article is fiction. I simply state facts. Somebody please respond.Milosheff (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milosheff. If you are connected to The Bronx Times, then you have a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia. This does not mean you can never edit the article, but rather you need to be a little careful as explained in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Wikipedia requires that all article content be written from a neutral point of view and be supported by citations to reliable sources (preferably independent and secondary sources) for verification purposes. Many editors who are connected, either personally or professionally, to a subject often have a hard time adhering to this and instead and various "facts" (i.e., personal knowledge) to articles, then what reflects what is said about the subject in reliable sources. If you're not one of those editors, then you should have no problem complying with relevant Wikipedia guidelines. If you want some clarification as to whether being the person who founded the paper means you have a conflict of interest, you can ask for other opinions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Bronx Times for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Bronx Times 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/The Bronx Times 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. —swpb^T 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]