User talk:Aali451

License tagging for Image:Iaeste iran.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Iaeste iran.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nimayoushij.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading Image:Nimayoushij.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Iaeste iran.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Iaeste iran.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giatec Scientific Inc. (March 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 Wiae 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:

The references provided are primary sources (an interview and a patent specification) that lack independence from the subject and do not show whether the company meets the corporate inclusion criteria. Thanks,

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:Giatec Scientific Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae /tlk 23:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Aali451, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! /wiae /tlk 23:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giatec Scientific Inc. (March 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 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 overall.

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:Giatec Scientific Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giatec Scientific Inc. (March 13)[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 RadioFan 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 they left was:

The tone of this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It reads like a glossy brochure for the company. Phrases like " smart solutions", "novel methods" and "excellent business council" are not neutral in tone. Praises like "a fast growing start-up company" are fine if they are referenced but not if they are coming from the article writer.

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:Giatec Scientific Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RadioFan (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RadioFan. Thank you for your comments. I have applied all the requested modifications and made the article neutral. Aali451 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declare any connection[edit]

Hello, Aali451. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Draft:Giatec Scientific Inc., you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or 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 familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observations on Draft:Giatec Scientific Inc.[edit]

Giatec Scientific Inc. is probably notable, but you're shooting yourself in the foot:

Relatively new editors are often hesitant to declare a connection to what they're writing about. In some circumstances failing to do so can be a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Also, in my experience, failing to declare a connection causes some editors to assume the worst - that not only is there a close connection, but that the editor is lying by omission by not admitting it. Be sure to follow the appropriate procedure outlined in WP:DISCLOSE if any of its points apply to you.

If comparing the draft to articles about other companies, be sure to compare it to Wikipedia's best articles. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality content and low quality content. Patterning a new article after a poor article is a recipe for failure.

"Knowledge-based company" is a business jargon neologism that is as yet ill defined. I strongly recommend against using the term. Using it in the first sentence is suicidal.

The draft's best sources are the Ottawa Business Journal, Globe and Mail, and Ottawa Citizen. Quality of sources is far more important than quantity. The bulk of the draft's content must come from sources independent of the company, such as the above. Some of the sources that have been added are taking the draft in the wrong direction, and may be decreasing the draft's chances of approval - the patent link, Concrete International, YouTube video, and mobile app link are examples.

For Wikipedia, the most important section is History. R&D should be folded into History. Promoting Knowledge and Awards should be scrapped. That's the sort of information companies often publicize, perhaps thinking it will attract customers or investors. It isn't encyclopedia-worthy information.

--Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giatec Scientific Inc. (March 31)[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 333-blue 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Giatec Scientific Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

333 -blue 23:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giatec Scientific Inc. (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 Happysquirrel 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 they left was:

Sorry, but PR speak like "solutions", "concrete testing devices" have no place in an encyclopedia. What, as baldly and descriptively does the company sell? How do they sell it? Where? To whom? How do they and others react? The article should look like a purely informative answer to these questions.

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:Giatec Scientific Inc. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giatec Scientific Inc. has been accepted[edit]

Giatec Scientific Inc., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you![edit]

Congratulations on the new article. The first time I read through the draft, I couldn't even figure out what the company sold. The new version is very clear and concise. If my comments hadn't still been there from the previous review, I wouldn't have recognised it. Keep up the good work! Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]