Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at Beeswaxcandle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Elahrairah. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion

I have fundamentally rephrased my entry after first deletion, all the language I used was from a neutral POV. At least I think I have stated facts instead of opinions, and all my references were checked. The thing I don't get here, is that what makes it neutral to you? If I add a paragraph on 'criticism' or 'controversy' does that makes it neutral? Looking forward to your advices, thanks. Liebeistkaelteralsdertod (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about mission statements and services offered is promotional. Wikipedia is not a free advertising service or a way to raise publicity for an organisation, for-profit or otherwise. Even if this article were not promotional in tone, it would still be deleted as it is not significant enough to warrant an article. Please do not recreate it again. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basalisk,

You recently deleted a page I created - Grey Technology (Gtech) - citing A7 (no indication of importance). May I ask if you read through the talk page of the article before deleting? I had made numerous edits that others had flagged as 'promotional', which involved taking out a lot of information related to the company's importance - such as: 22million+ sales for its debut product; availability of products in the UK and US; product reviews in high-circulation newspapers; media coverage for Gtech and its founder Nick Grey.

I believe this company is important enough to warrant inclusion, and I would be grateful if you could provide me with some pointers in regards to information I can include that is considered to display importance, without being promotional.

Thanks and kind regards,

--Opyper (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Though the article had previously been deleted per G11 as advertising, I deleted it as A7 as it made no assertion of importance. The company isn't notable enough for an article and so I can't see how changing the style to make it less promotional would make any difference. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia notability guidelines put a lot of weight on coverage from third party sources. I have citations from the Sunday Times, the Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Good Housekeeping Institute. These cover product sales (including the 22m+ sales of the SW01 floor sweeper, as mentioned above), interest in company founder Nick Grey's work as an entrepreneur and inventor, and product reviews. Surely these are evidence of notability? Or do the personal opinions of editors play a large part in weighing up an articles notability? Regards, Opyper (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, personal opinion doesn't have any bearing on notability. The Sunday Times article you supplied isn't about the business, it's about its owner. The Telegraph source is good but you need several good sources to confer notability. Are you in any way associated with this company or its employees? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Basalisk - no connection to the company other than appreciating their products, and coming from roughly the same part of the world. The Sunday Times article is indeed about Nick Grey but it covers Gtech-related stuff too - the whole article swings upon the success of his company. I have two Telegraph sources - one covering the problems with bringing UK manufacturing operations to the UK, and the other covering Gtech's flagship product. I also have product reviews from the Sunday Times, and the Daily Mail, and a press release proving Gtech is endorsed by the Good Housekeeping institution. Naturally, many of these will focus on products, but due to the nature of Gtech's business, that's to be expected. What I was getting at in my first post is that I believe these sources prove that Gtech is worthy of a Wikipedia article, but I was told to remove them as they were seen as being promotional - do you believe I should reinstate this information? Opyper (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More... Gtech wins trade award in US (Worcester News); more product coverage from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Which?; Gtech endorsement information from Good Housekeeping itself; more Nick Grey/Gtech coverage from Telegraph and Sunday Times...Opyper (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, you can re-make the article with those sources, but avoid a promotional tone. You can include a sentence or something for their products, but don't spend too much time talking about how good they are or awards they've received. The article you write shouldn't sound like it's trying to make the company look good or improve perception of their products. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Thanks very much for your advice. Opyper (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is for real.Cblambert (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! There's been some additional comments here - would you mind taking a look? --Rschen7754 18:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you saw or not, but DQ answered you on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why you tagged three of my IPs as "abusing multiple accounts"? Of my two accounts, the second was blocked for violating the clean start policy, and the first was never blocked. As far as I know, under these circumstances I would still be allowed to use my original account or post anonymously. --213.179.213.19 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,this page is not a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject, It is just a tool for users to learn more about it and Blu-ray player software, just like Microsoft Office. I would appreciate any tips on rewriting it. User talk: Bella.show May 14 2013. —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a cookie. Rd232 talk 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was recently wondering if there was a "Have a cookie" barnstar. Close enough. I'm nabbing the source code. :  } Thanks, Basalisk. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at your recent spamublock of User:Kwnyc who has been renamed to User:JDWilliams through CHU. Your block of the prior name was done at the same time of the rename so it spilled over to the new name which is not a username violation. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I was about to look into it further but got called away from the keyboard. I've unblocked the renamed account. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why did you revert my change? The change was factually correct, zinedine zidane is not french, he's a french national, but ethnically algerian. My edit was factually correct, therefore you should not have reverted it.