User talk:Yitzilitt (paid)

Yitzilitt (paid), you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Yitzilitt (paid)! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: SudShare (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:SudShare and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:SudShare, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:SudShare has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:SudShare. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:SudShare

If this was the first article that you 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.

The page Draft:SudShare has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Washio (company) has been accepted

Washio (company), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Missvain Thank you for taking the time to review my submission! I'm working on expanding the scope of laundry-related business coverage on Wikipedia, and really appreciate your help. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if you could also take the time to review Draft:SudShare, which I've been working really hard on since its previous rejection. No pressure of course; I get AFC is a bit of a monster these days.

Yours, Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mort Fertel (December 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mort Fertel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mort Fertel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mort Fertel (December 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tol was: 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mort Fertel and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mort Fertel, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: SudShare has been accepted

SudShare, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of SudShare for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SudShare 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/SudShare until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of SudShare for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SudShare 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/SudShare (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Guideline interpretation Reply

Hi, hope you don't mind picking the discussion up here rather than at the AfD page. You said I didn't want to be adversarial - just FYI I think you've been perfectly polite and professional and in contrast I've probably come across as aggressive and impatient. That's normal for WP - some people are more gifted than others at writing. You also asked "would you mind linking some Wikipedia articles about companies which haven't been the subject of controversy that you believe meet NCORP guidelines?" Fine question. One way would be to use AfD Stats and you can see that most articles I encounter fail the criteria. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion - WP:SERIESA. But if you go down through the stats you'll see where/when I !voted to Keep which happens about 7% of the time or so. For the ones I !vote Keep, generally, it is either because an analyst report provides in-depth independent information or because they feature in a book or case-study or something like that. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Minimalism

You pull it off in a deletion discussion by biding your time, and finding the policy based argument(s) you wish to put forward. You make as brief a point as possible, citing the policy/policies you rely on. Then you treat it as a Fire-and-forget missile, and ignore all points made by others, however incorrect you consider them to be. You might treat yourself to perhaps one further comment later on. But do not get into a blow by blow discussion.

Those who close discussions do so knowing that their close can be challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review so are careful to weigh up the policy based arguments. They will, or should, ignore anything without a policy based rationale. If closing as a deletion it will be an admin who closes because they will then action the deletion. A close to keep may be performed by any editor in good standing. No closer may have participated in the discussion. This means we trust the close to be impartial, based on the policy arguments put forward.

The closer may not have a 'supervote' of adding their own opinion into the discussion. If they have an opinion then they should offer it inside the discussion and not make the closure Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

One thing that is very important is to respect the views and rights of other editors who offer opinions. This is why, though I disagree with your rationale that this be kept I am very clear that you need and deserve the chance to make your views clear, something you have done. I wish for the sake of your argument that you had done it differently, more concise and less frequently.

This is because the more words, the more arguments one puts forwards, the more confused the discussion becomes. This has little to do with social norms. t is observation of those who fail to get their point across at AfD. It may be because humans react poorly to seeing the same thing used multiple times in arguments.

So, certainly for the future, make your point once and well. Excellence beats volume of comment every time. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As a third and final paragraph, paid status makes a deletion discussion more difficult.

I do not expect a paid article to appear at AfD because the editor who is paid is expected to write neutral and well referenced copy demonstrating notability. This is the same reason that I expect an article submitted for review at AFC to pass first time, or most certainty the second time. This is because that is what being paid is about. The workman must be worth hiring. Failure at AFC or worse, arriving at AfD, shows that the fee really ought to be refunded. The paid editor has failed (0.9 probability). AfD has a broad outcome rate of 60:40 delete to keep. These are poor odds for success.

That backs up my assertion that a paid editor is paid to succeed.

If the topic has notability then success is guaranteed (0.99 probability). If it has no inherent notability then failure will come, either at AFC or at AfD. The paid editor must be able to make a judgement about which commissions they will accept, never even trying the borderline topics. Racing certainties are the only commissions to accept. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice. I'll definitly keep this in mind for the future, and will try to "fire and forget" when discussing policy-related issues in the future, as you put it. By the way, I should note that I'm not a contractor, but was rather asked to create an article about SudShare by my employer, and since refusing could have had a negative impact on my job, I was told to disclose that COI through the "paid editor" (and disclosed COI) template. It certianly isn't my "day job" to represent companies on Wikipedia. I hope this helps put my (admittedly rather inexperienced/clumsy) actions at AFD into context, though of course that does not excuse any mistakes I've made along the way. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not worry.

I'm glad you are not a contractor. That speaks well for your hobby editing here.

I understand about negative impacts on employment. All one can do in those circumstances is one's best. Even so, Wikipedia 'does not care', as you have seen. I real terms that way 'does not care' is expressed, often forcefully, is useful to you in presenting why you have not (necessarily) succeed in the task your employer set you.

My thoughts about article creation by paid editors reman the same. They are paid, by salary or by commissioned about, to know what they are doing. We hold the paid editor to a rigorous standard primarily because this is an amateur project, by community consensus Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

And thanks to you for your kind words and incredible work you do! Hope to see you around when I get a chance to go back to normal, non-paid editing stuff. :) Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

My view at present looking at the arguments is that Sudshare could go either way. That may lead to a close of 'no consensus' which helps no-one. I always prefer a solid keep or solid delete as a closure Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, a 'no consensus' ruling could be helpful in the sense that we might have more data a few months from now (like new original reporting, or a notable lack of long-term coverage or something), so maybe a "let's keep it for now but with some reservations," attitude would make sense if you feel it's on the edge of notability, and think having more data (or a conspicuous lack thereof) would tip the scales on one side or another in the near future.

Regardless, I wouldn't view a 'no consensus' ruling as being a waste of time (though it would be rather unsatisfying), since this sort of discussion is still valuable, imo. This is probably less the case for you, but I've certainly learned a lot and changed (some of) my beliefs about NCORP policy in the process! Yitz (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

(used incorrect account above, sorry about that)-Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Mort Fertel

Hello, Yitzilitt (paid). This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mort Fertel, 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) 23:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)