Jump to content

User talk:TheGremlin

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

Welcome!

[edit]

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE, TO MAKE IT EASIER TO FOLLOW I MAY WRITE IN CAPS (NOT TO BE INTERPRETED AS yelling) AS FOR A NEW USER WIKIPEDIA'S FORMAT IS A MESS. (some responses may still be lower case)

I AM LOOKING FOR ASSISTANCE CREATING AN ARTICLE, AND HAVE SWITCHED TOPICS TO RESEARCH & START OVER WITH HOWEVER THE REVIEWS HAVE PROVEN OBJECTIVE DUE TO THE LACK OF CLEAR STANDARDS, HOWEVER I CONTINUE TO PICK DIFFERENT TOPICS AND REWRITE BASED ON FEEDBACK, OR LACK OF.

Hello, TheGremlin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Kukini HELLO AND THANK YOU, I HAVE ENDEAVORED TO LEARN HOW TO CREATE AN ARTICLE, AND START OVER BY SWITCHING TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC FOR A FRESH START BASED ON EVALUATORS FEEDBACK. MOST RECENTLY THE FEEDBACK WENT FROM "you need more references" TO "the article is over referenced"
AND AFTER REWRITING IN PROSE AS PER REQUEST, I WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT REWRITTEN WHEN IT CLEARLY WAS - SO STARTED OVER ON ANOTHER DIFFERENT TOPIC.
I MADE IT SHORT, SIMPLIFIED, AND USED LESS BUT MORE PROMINENT MEDIA PUBLISHERS - APPARENTLY THIS DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA EITHER.
RESTARTED AGAIN FROM SCRATCH ON A DIFFERENT ITEM UNRELATED TO ANY ONE ENTITY. AS SOMEONE VOLUNTEERING MY TIME, WIKIPEDIA PRACTICES ARE QUITE A DETERRENT TO THE ::GROWTH & ADOPTION OF THE PLATFORM. THE UX WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED DATED YEARS AGO AND STILL HASN'T BEEN MODERNIZED DESPITE THE FUNDING DRIVES.
I CONTINUE RECEIVING SUBJECTIVE FEEDBACK AND AM TOLD THERE SI NO STANDARD IT IS UP TO INTERPRETATION.
THE PLATFORM IS NEITHER INTUITIVE NOR USER FRIENDLY CREATING A BARRIER TO ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS AND WIKIPEDIA'S GROWTH, AS WELL AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A COMPETITOR. WIKIPEDIA COULD A|B TEST INTUITIVE USER FRIENDLY UX TO INCREASE CONTRIBUTIONS & TRAFFIC.
I'VE READ THE POOR REPUTATION ONLINE MODERATORS HAVE DEVELOPED - SPECIFICALLY THEY ARE OFTEN REFERRED TO AS CONDESCENDING TO NEWBIES - HOWEVER CONTRARY TO THIS SOME HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO ME
YOUR INTRO ABOVE WAS HELPFUL IN GETTING STARTED, THANK YOU.
IN THE UNFORTUNATE ABSENCE OF AN INTUITIVE UX IT IS A NECESSARY BAND-AID THAT SLOWS WIKIPEDIA DOWN, AND THERE IS TREMENDOUS UNTAPPED POTENTIAL IF THIS IS ADDRESSED.

iwanturCAT (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CoolIT Systems (March 14)

[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 SwisterTwister 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 they left was:
Still needs any further available in-depth third-party sources such as news, magazines and journals sources. Thanks for your efforts, Sincerely,
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.
SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YOU WILL SEE IN THE RESPONSE BELOW TwistedSister DID NOT REPLY AS THEY WERE REPORTED BLOCKED.

Your draft article, Draft:CoolIT Systems

[edit]

Hello, TheGremlin. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "CoolIT Systems".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YOU WILL SEE IN THE RESPONSE BELOW TwistedSister DID NOT REPLY AS THEY WERE REPORTED BLOCKED.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Academy of Financial Divorce Specialists (AFDS) (April 1)

[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 CommanderWaterford was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, TheGremlin! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CommanderWaterford,
PLEASE LET ME KNOW THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED MAINSTREAM SOURCES REQUIRED. ALSO, THESE TALK PAGES ARE QUITE COMPLICATED COMPARED TO EVERY OTHER FORUM AND CHAT I'VE EVER USED, AND THE 'HOW TO' INSTRUCTIONS ARE EVEN MORE CONFUSING; I CANNOT EVEN SAY FOR SURE I'VE FOUND THEM DESPITE A LOT OF DIGGING AROUND. THANK YOU

iwanturCAT (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Academy of Financial Divorce Specialists (AFDS)

[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:Academy of Financial Divorce Specialists (AFDS), 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 deleted 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. TheChronium (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK, I WILL SELECT A DIFFERENT TOPIC TO RESEARCH AND ATTEMPT AN ARTICLE ON.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Academy of Financial Divorce Specialists (AFDS) (April 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by LJF2019 were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
LJF2019 talk 13:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AS ABOVE, I WILL SELECT A DIFFERENT TOPIC AND RESEARCH. THE DESIGNATION HAS BEEN AROUND LONGER THAN THE GOVERNING BODY AND HAS BEEN COVERED REGULARLY IN THE MEDIA PERHAPS A BETTER CHOICE.

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! TheGremlin, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting help

[edit]

Your posts on User talk:SwisterTwister will likely not receive a response because User:SwisterTwister has been blocked from Wikipedia. I think a good place to ask your question would be at WP:AFCHELP. CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK

Your submission at Articles for creation: CoolIT Systems (May 24)

[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 Pbrks 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.
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.
Pbrks (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I SPECIFICALLY WROTE LIKE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, USING CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND TRADITIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW. SPECIFICS WOULD HELP, WILL REWRITE, THANK YOU

Your submission at Articles for creation: CoolIT Systems (June 7)

[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 Anarchyte was:
This is just a list of achievements and history. This needs to be rewritten in prose form.
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.
Anarchyte (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchyte AS PER YOUR RECOMMENDATION I HAVE COMPLETELY REWRITTEN, ADDED MORE NOTABLE REFERENCES WHERE OTHERS SAID IT LACKED, AND RESUBMITTED. EVALUATORS SAID IT IS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS WHICH IS NOT THE CASE, I REWROTE IT, REMOVED CONTENT, REWORDED AND REARRANGED AS PER PROSE EXAMPLES ANOTHER EVALUATOR WAS KIND ENOUGH TO SUGGEST. I WAS ALSO TOLD THE NEW VERSION IS "OVER REFERENCED"iwanturCAT (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CoolIT Systems (June 16)

[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 Robertsky 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:
still reads like an advertisement
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.
– robertsky (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EXAMPLE OF WHERE SOME DETAILS WOULD BE HELPFUL BUT WERE NOT PROVIDED. I CONTINUE READING UP AND REWRITING.

Email

[edit]

I see that you sent me an email but I did not know what it was about. I'm guessing we interacted on some article that you did not identify the article don't have any recollection. Please provides more details and I will try to respond.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop emailing me. You can discuss it here, although if it is about CoolIT Systems, I'm not particularly interested.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sphilbrick I WOULD LOVE TO IF IT WAS EASY TO DO SO, IT SHOULD BE AS EASY & INTUITIVE AS 'REPLY' ON A BASIC FORUM, NOT REQUIRING A MANUAL. I'VE FIGURED OUT ABOUT HALF THE HOW TO USE TALK PAGES, HOPEFULLY WIKIPEDIA LEARNS THE VALUE OF SIMPLICITY SO CONTRIBUTORS TIME DOES NOT CONTINUE GETTING WASTED ON ANSWERING QUESTIONS HOW TO DO THINGS THAT COULD BE SELF EXPLANATORY. THANK YOU FOR REPLYING, THE FEEDBACK HAS BEEN HELPFUL IN CONFIRMING THE MESSAGE WAS SENT PROPERLY AND FURTHER FIGURING OUT HOW THE NAVIGATE THE WIKIPEDIA --iwanturCAT (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

[edit]

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop repeatedly submitting your draft without fixing the issues for which it is being declined - this is disruptive  A S U K I T E  19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content such as "Shit blew up in 2010 when the CoolIT shipments jumped Lebron style from..." must be removed. And the draft is WAY over-referenced. A simple factual statement such as "The OSC Pitzer Cluster followed..." doe not need six references. David notMD (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reply to David notMD Asukite

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK, I DID NOT CONSIDER IT A DISPUTE HOWEVER PERHAPS I SHOULD. I'M JUST FOLLOWING THE CURRENTLY PUBLISHED EXAMPLES THAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO MEET YOUR CRITERIA TO BE PUBLISHED, AND HAVE STARTED REFERENCING MORE THAN ONE AS SOMEONE MENTIONED, AS WELL AS MAKING CHANGES AS FEEDBACK IS PROVIDED. THAT BEING SAID i WILL CONSIDER YOUR IDEA OF IT BEING A DISPUTE, BUT I'M REALLY JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE STANDARD IS BASED ON WHAT IS PUBLISHED AND FEEDBACK. I'VE COMPLETELY REWRITTEN THIS ARTICLE AFTER SEVERAL CHANGES.

SOME THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS EASIER:
A SIMPLE REPLY OPTION SIMILAR TO A FORUM OR CHAT TO DISCUSS WITH THOSE SUBJECTIVELY EVALUATING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE
A STANDARD - AFTER READING THE DISCLOSURES, COI, HOW TO'S AND SEVERAL DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS, I'VE ATTEMPTED A FEW DIFFERENT ARTICLES TO LEARN HOW TO GET ONE PUBLISHED. EACH TIME THERE ARE PROBLEMS, AND ONE OF THE EVALUATORS EXPLAINED THE SUBJECTIVENESS THAT NEEDS TO BE NAVIGATED HERE, AND MANY OF THE *CURRENT ARTICLES DO NO MEET WIKIPEDIA CRITERIA, SOME WHICH I FLAGGED IF IDENTIFIED. A STANDARD WOULD HELP BOTH WRITERS AND EVALUATORS, AND FREE UP EVALUATORS TIME.
I AGREE IT IS OVER REFERENCED, HOWEVER I WAS PREVIOUSLY TOLD ALTHOUGH MY SOURCES WERE NOTABLE I NEEDED MORE OF THEM, SO I ADDED MORE NOTABLE MEDIA SOURCES AS THE ONES I HAD APPARENTLY WERE NOT ENOUGH. WHAT IS THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT FOR # OF RESOURCES AND WHERE DOES ONE FIND THIS? SOME ARTICLES HAVE 1 REFERENCE FOR A POINT, OTHERS HAVE 2 OR 3.
I ALSO REMOVED THE 'disruptive' LINE AND REPLACED TO KEEP THE PEACE.

AfC notification: Draft:CoolIT Systems has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:CoolIT Systems. Thanks!  A S U K I T E  19:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reply to Asukite HI, WHEN I LOOK FOR IT I DO NOT SEE IT. I SEARCH FOR ANYTHING FROM ASUKITE AND NOTHING SHOWS UP. PLEASE ADVISE, THANK YOU iwanturCAT (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Information icon

Hello TheGremlin. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:TheGremlin. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TheGremlin|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reply toTheroadislong I'M NOT BEING PAID AS PER YOUR 'IMPRESSION', AND HAVE REWRITTEN THE ARTICLE IN PROSE BASED ON WIKIPEDIA'S SUGGESTIONS FROM Anarchyte'S WHICH YOU SEE ABOVE.
A CLEARER STANDARD WOULD BE USEFUL FOR USERS TO PRODUCE SOMETHING YOU DON'T MISINTERPRET - AS WELL AS AN EASIER FEEDBACK MECHANISM. PLEASE BE MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT IS GIVING YOU THE WRONG IMPRESSION SO I CAN REWRITE.
I HESITATE TO DUMB IT DOWN AND RECEIVE THE RESPONSE IT LACKS CONTENT OF REFERENCES AGAIN.iwanturCAT (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chartered Financial Divorce Specialist (July 16)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
1) Many statements unreferenced.

2) Sources not enough to establish notability.

3) Promotional in tone.
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.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reply to DoubleGrazing IF THESE MEDIA SOURCES ARE NOT ENOUGH, CONSIDERING THEY SURPASS MANY ALREADY APPROVED ARTICLES - AS WIKIPEDIA SAID NOT TO BASE IT ON JUST ONE - HOW ARE YOU CLEANING UP THE MANY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES CURRENTLY POSTED THAT FAIL TO MEET WIKIPEDIA CRITERIA? - ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE EXCESS FUNDING AVAILABLE FROM ANNUAL ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE SITE HEADER. iwanturCAT (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Coolit Systems (November 15)

[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 Timtrent was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I am not ab out to accept any draft that means I have to clear out questions, etc, from the text. Please read WP:YFA
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.
FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--[User:Timtrent] I HAVE REMOVED THE QUESTION AS SUGGESTED AND RESUBMITTED, THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK! Victor (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CFDS (November 19)

[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 Nomadicghumakkad was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
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.
Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomadicghumakkad (talk)

@Nomadicghumakkad: YOU STATE THE FOLLOWING COVERAGE AS FAR BACK AS 2004 ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES:


[WALL STREET JOURNAL] - ONE OF THE LARGEST JOURNALS IN THE USA [AS A NEWSPAPER OF RECORD]


INVESTMENT EXECUTIVE - CANADA'S NATIONAL NEWSPAPER FOR FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS


IIROC - THE INVESTMENT INDUSTRY REGULATORY ORGANIZATION OF CANADA


ADVISOR MAGAZINE - A LEADING SOURCE FOR FINANCIAL ADVISOR NEWS


THE TORONTO STAR - CANADA'S LARGEST ONLINE NEWS SITE


MORNINGSTAR


FINANCIAL POST [[1]] - *NOTE WIKIPEDIA ONLY APPROVED THIS FINANCIAL POST ARTICLE BASED ON 6 REFERENCES ALL FROM A SINGLE SOURCE 'THE GLOBE AND MAIL' WHICH IS AGAINST ITS GUIDELINES FOR 'MULTIPLE SOURCES', YET YOU'VE REJECTED THIS ARTICLE WITH 9 DIFFERENT RELIABLE REFERENCES. "The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." - WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO FOLLOW ITS OWN RULES, AND APPROVALS SHOULD BE BASED ON THEM. PLEASE FOLLOW THE STANDARD.


MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE [[2]]


BLOOMBERG

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, NATIONAL LEVEL NEWSPAPERS & JOURNALS LIKE INVESTMENT EXECUTIVE & ADVISOR MAGAZINE, MAJOR METROPOLITAN MEDIA OUTLETS LIKE THE TORONTO STAR AND THE FINANCIAL POST, AS WELL AS MORNINGSTAR, MACLEAN'S MAGAZINE AND BLOOMBERG ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES - AND WHY THESE ARE ACCEPTABLE THROUGHOUT WIKIPEDIA ELSEWHERE.

THANK YOU

Victor (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Additional magazine publication article references added today. Victor (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Coolit Systems (November 20)

[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 S0091 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
S0091 (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


reply S0091 (talk) THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK, THIS WILL HELP ME WITH THE DRAFT; I HAVE RESTARTED THIS ARTICLE TO REBUILD FROM SCRATCH BASED ON FEEDBACK RECEIVED ON WHAT WIKIPEDIA NEEDS, AS THE CRITERIA KEEP CHANGING.
PREVIOUSLY I WAS TOLD THIS ARTICLE WAS UNDER REFERENCED. I CONTINUED ADDING REFERENCES AND WAS THEN TOLD IT WAS 'OVER REFERENCED.' SO FIRST, PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW MANY YOU WOULD LIKE, AND LET ME KNOW HOW MANY 'OVER REFERENCED' IS SO I CAN STAY UNDER THE LIMIT. THE LIST OF ARTICLES COVER ITS 20 YEAR HISTORY.
REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT FOR BEING IN PUBLISHED, RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCES INDEPENDENT OF THE SUBJECT, I STARTED WITH 7 REFERENCES THAT MEET THIS CRITERIA WHICH IS MORE THAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FINANCIAL POST WHICH ONLY REFERENCES THE GLOBE AND MAIL YET LIKE MANY UNDER REFERENCED ARTICLES WAS APPROVED.


I SELECTED THE FOLLOWING:


CANADIAN BUSINESS MAGAZINE - THE LONGEST-PUBLISING BUSINESS MAGAZINE BASED IN THE METROPOLIS TORONTO, FOUNDED IN 1927.


GARTNER - RESEARCH & CONSULTING COMPANY RECOGNIZED AROUND THE WORLD


HPCWIRE - THE #1 NEWS & INFORMATION RESOURCE COVERING THE FASTEST COMPUTERS IN THE WORLD AND THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THEM. DATING BACK TO 1987 HAS MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF WORLD CLASS EDITORIAL AND JOURNALISM


BUSINESS INSIDER - MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN FINANCIAL & BUSINESS NEWS MEDIA OUTLET FOUNDED IN 2007, AVERAGING 375 MILLION MONTHLY WEBSITE VISITORS


CALGARY HERALD - DAILY NEWSPAPER SERVING ONE OF THE LARGEST METRO CITIES IN CANADA WHOSE PUBLICATION STARTED IN 1883


GLOBE AND MAIL
-(THIS WAS THE ONLY MEDIA GIANT USED TO APPROVE THE FINANCIAL POST ARTICLE, ALL REFERENCES WERE ONLY FROM ONE SOURCE WHICH DOES NOT QUALIFY ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS AND WAS APPROVED REGARDLESS. I HAVE AN ADDITION 6 REFERENCES IN THE ARTICLE BEYOND THIS REDUCED FROM OVER 100. REGARDING IT'S CREDIBILITY:
- THE GLOBE IS CANADIAN NEWSPAPER PRINTED IN 5 CITIES ACROSS CANADA WITH WEEKLY READERSHIP OF APPROXIMATELY 2 MILLION IN 2015, IT IS THE NATIONS MOST WIDELY READ NEWSPAPER


WAIT, I MISSED THE 7TH REFERENCE IN EXTERNAL LINKS:
BUSINESS IN CALGARY MAGAZINE - 30 YEAR PUBLICATION WITH DISTRIBUTION TO 28,200 BUSINESSES AND SURROUNDING AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE METRO AREA


  • SO THE ONLY ITEM MISSING BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK IS ADDITIONAL REFERENCES, HOW MANY OF WHICH ARE NOT MENTIONED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW MANY, OR WOULD AN ADDITIONAL 5 OR 10 DO.
THANK YOU KINDLY Victor (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


reply updateS0091 (talk) I'VE ADDED MORE REFERENCES HOWEVER THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE FORMAT HAS CHANGED AND I'M CONCERNED I WILL RECEIVE A DECLINE BASED ON 'OVER REFERENCED' SO I'M GOING TO RESUBMIT AND WAIT FOR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK. Victor (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gremlin, it is not solely about the number of references but also the quality of the source and the depth of coverage. For example, a press release regardless of the source that publishes it does not count toward notability because it is not independent. Same goes for interviews, standard notices/announcements (like funding) or anything the company says about itself so you can 100 of those it will be meaningless, even if they are published by a reliable source. Also, you could have a reliable source with independent coverage but its not in-depth. You need all three: reliable, independent and in-depth. Three references that meet all three criteria is enough to establish notability. If you have not already, please do read the the notability guidelines for companies as it goes into detail with some great examples about the type of sources/coverage needed. In addition to notability, the article needs to be written in a neutral manner (see WP:NPOV and WP:WTW) and ideally following general formatting and standards. Also, please do not use all caps when communicating as it is interpreted as yelling (see WP:SHOUT). I do not think that is truly your intent. S0091 (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
reply updateS0091 (talk)Sweet, thank you for the details this helps explain better than the wikipedia pages I've read previously. I've made a point of trying to screen out press releases for this draft for that reason, so there should not be any, satisfying the independent source criteria, and only used reliable sources. I'll go through the the in-depth description again. I only select topics that are notable wikipedia lacks coverage on, and then pick which references are applicable. Sometimes the media is behind on things, however this does not mean wikipedia needs to lag. I would prefer to not use all caps and considered that, however wikipedia's format is so poor it was one of few options to make it clearer for me to follow the talk page.
This would not be necessary if wikipedia reallocated the abundance of cash reserves generated from wikipedia’s annual advertisements (falsifying their financial situation to deceive people into becoming donors[1]) to a simple, user friendly format - which would also unload the reviewers work load. Victor (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:CFDS has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:CFDS. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Chartered Financial Divorce Specialist

[edit]

Information icon Hello, TheGremlin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chartered Financial Divorce Specialist, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:CoolIT Systems

[edit]

Hello, TheGremlin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "CoolIT Systems".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Coolit Systems

[edit]

Information icon Hello, TheGremlin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Coolit Systems, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Linda Cartier

[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:Linda Cartier, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing feedback as to how to improve the article. Although I shortened and rewrote the article, I see what you were referring to, therefore I have completely rewritten the article again and submitted for review. Additional feedback welcome. Victor (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Linda Cartier (February 1)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been fully rewritten and reworded to be encyclopedic and original. Additional feedback welcome, thank you. Victor (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Linda Cartier

[edit]

Information icon Hello, TheGremlin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Linda Cartier, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Linda Cartier

[edit]

Hello, TheGremlin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Linda Cartier".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/02/wikipedia-has-a-ton-of-money-so-why-is-it-begging-you-to-donate-yours
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGremlin&oldid=1168751585"