User talk:Rexjoec

Articles for deletion nomination of Zacks Investment Research

I have nominated Zacks Investment Research, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zacks Investment Research. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Timneu22 · talk 14:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Trebuchet MS. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [1] -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zacks Investment Research

Hello. I created a page for Zacks Investment Research last week and it has been deleted. I am still a novice when it comes to creating wiki articles and I tried to follow the guidelines the best I could. I rewrote the article and if you can offer some of your expertise for this new one, I would greatly appreciate it.

I have created a temporary page for Zacks Investment Research on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rexjoec/Zacks_Investment_Research and I was wondering anyone could offer some feedback about this one before I move it to the article space?

I followed the same format and used similar wording as related wiki pages such as TheStreet.com wiki page and The Motley Fool wiki page. If you think it is in jeopardy of being deleted, then I would like to know what is wrong and if it is any different than TheStreet.com or The Motley Fool where their pages were accepted.

Please let me know if this new version of Zacks Investment Research is good enough to become accepted.

Rexjoec (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Rexjoec[reply]

Please do not use other Wikipedia articles as guides to write--there is no formal "acceptance" policy, so trash often enters unseen. If you feel a page does not deserve inclusion here, please nominate it for deletion. Regarding Zacks Investment Research, please just find more indepedentn sources--many appear to be Zacks' own websites, which do not satisfy the criteria of a third-party reliable source. —fetch ·comms 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, though, as the article was already deleted once via a deletion discussion, you must ensure that this version is substantially different than the deleted one, or it will be redeleted as recreation of deleted material. —fetch ·comms 19:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you fetchcomms. I really appreciate your input. I took your advice and found more independent sources of non-Zacks websites. Rexjoec (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Rexjoec[reply]

Hi, I came here from the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, mentioned below. I just wanted to give you some internal links to peruse, which will help explain why the previous articles were deleted, and what to include to make sure future ones don't get deleted. First, as Fetchcomms mentioned above, the biggest issue with the deleted articles was Reliable Sources. All information in a WP article has to come from a third party source that is considered reliable, which usually means some sort of peer-review or critical analysis, or other standards of quality apply to them. This will be news outlets, professional journals, etc. Blogs, op-ed pieces, and press-releases (including places like Business Wire who re-print company releases) are generally not considered reliable. A quick way to look at the whole sourcing thing is: Wikipedia prints what other reliable people have already said about a topic. What the topic (company) says about themselves can be included, but isn't usually meant to be relied on by the article.

Next link is the link to the Neutral Point Of View policy. Articles should be written from a completely neutral tone, omitting words like "leader", "best", etc and similar "puffery" type words are generally frowned upon. The guideline here is that you should not be able to tell by reading the article whether the writer loves or hates the subject.

Last one, which may or may not be a concern, is the Conflict of Interest policy. There is some concern that you may be affiliated with the subjects of the articles, or may be a freelance writer paid to write them. (I'm not asking you to confirm or deny either). In the former case, the COI guidelines outline things to be especially aware of when writing about a topic you have a close relation to. In the latter case, opinions are divided and very vocal on both sides as to how to view paid writing. As companies who outsource a Wikipedia article on themselves will logically want it to appear as positive as possible, this makes the COI policy apply here as well. The quick rule on writing in a COI area is: When writing an article, if your primary interest is anything other than writing a complete article for the good of all, then you have a conflict in where your interest lies, and you need to tread very carefully, and also expect extra scrutiny on your work.

So far, the article in your user space is heading in the right direction by your recent adds of sourcing. There are still many sources that are considered Primary Sources, which are allowed as long as there are sufficient Secondary sources to support it. If you can find an additional source or 2 that covers the company in some depth based on third-party sourcing, I think you'd be ok to promote it to the mainspace. As it was previously deleted though, it needs to be substantially different than the deleted version. I can't see the deleted version so can't offer an opinion there.

Hope all this helps! Arakunem^Talk 14:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Arakunem. I took your advice and inserted additional sources that covers the company in more depth. This current page is much different that the deleted version, however, it is currently being flagged as an advertisement? I tried rewriting it in a neutral point of view, but it is still being sensed as an advertisement. Any suggestions? Rexjoec (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Rexjoec[reply]

I think we are discussing User:Rexjoec/Zacks Investment Research. Since the article is supposedly about a company, there should not be such an emphasis on a person in the lead or in the History section. I have not looked in detail at the article, but I did not notice any independent references. We read that "it outperforms the market by nearly a 3 to 1 margin", yet the reference seems to be a press release. Also, see WP:REDFLAG: if something outperforms competitors by a factor of 3, the competitors would have no business and there would be multiple and highly reliable sources to verify the fact. The article should contain text similar to what reliable sources have written about the company. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

{{helpme}} I've been receiving help from other editors with trying to get a wiki page accepted into the live space. This page is currently in my user space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rexjoec/Zacks_Investment_Research Although, all the advice I have been receiving have been positive, I follow all their suggestions, but yet I still get flaggeed saying something is wrong with this page still.

The main flag is that it is not a neutral point of view. After several attempts, this latest version is a bare bones condensed version of the original where I took as much advertising like content out and made it a more neutral point of view page.

If anyone would be so kind to offer advice or an opinion on whether this page looks acceptable where it will not flagged for deletion if I were to put this current version live? I would truely appreciate it. Thanks!

Ref. 1 does not work. Ref 2, a wiki, is not a reliable source. Ref 3 is a primary source. Ref 4 is a press release, not independent.

Articles need significant coverage in independent reliable sources - please see WP:VRS, WP:FIRST.

Per the advice in WP:COI, WP:BFAQ etc, I suggest that you write about a different subject, Chzz ► 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest noticeboard

Please see: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Possible_freelance_editor_account.2C_User:Rexjoec. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Rexjoec, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Rexjoec/Zacks Investment Research. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Storm Water Solutions.png

Thanks for uploading File:Storm Water Solutions.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 14:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement

I can see that you are a new editor, but you need to know that Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article Storm Water Solutions. I have removed the infringing text, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

If you are being paid to edit at Wikipedia, you must disclose this fact on the talk page of every page that you are paid to edit. Please see the linked guideline for instructions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by AT WILL MEDIA on behalf of E. Bishop for some of their contributions to Wikipedia.

August 2021

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to At Will Media, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Rexjoec, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Rexjoec|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Will Malnati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audible. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited At Will Media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audible.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]