User talk:Sirzoop

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sirzoop, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Dubtrack.fm, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cahk (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dubtrack.fm[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 Dubtrack.fm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. Cahk (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Dubtrack.fm. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. —teb728 t c 08:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page Dubtrack.fm has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the content of the page appeared to be purely promotion of something or someone, and was unlikely to be suitable for an article (or at best would need a fundamental rewrite). Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, whether a company, product, group, service, person, religious or political belief, or anything else. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Hello, Sirzoop. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Dubtrack.fm, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are completely wrong by doing this. After reading through the guidelines you provided I do not have any conflict of interest from writing this article. I have never received any financial incentive from Dubtrack.fm and I do not work for the website in any way. I have talked with the owners several times to find out extensive history but I am in no way shape or form involved with Dubtrack.fm in any professional sense. You deleted an article that was not marked for speedy deletion. It is very insulting, especially when the article contained multiple third party sources that clearly were showing that the article was not only for self-promotion. I was not the one who removed the speedy deletion tag and I do not believe the original article should have been removed. It is evident that you did not read the talk page, as I resolved all previous issues that were risen. Had you told me on the article's talk page to rewrite it in a neutral tone, I would have done so. I wrote the article from an unbiased point of view and I have never received any compensation from Dubtrack.fm. I am merely a user who wanted to observe and transcribe the history of the website. I have not received any form of compensation for any contributions I have ever made to Wikipedia. However, I do understand that the tone was a little praising but I merely was citing and referencing many different independent articles. If you allow it to be restored I personally will go through and make sure that it is rewritten in a more neutral point of view and does not resemble any form of promotion. Best, Sirzoop (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JamesBWatson so that they can respond. Seems like the page may have been written with an overly laudatory tone when it was deleted-Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest does not have to involve payment, nor does a connection have to be "professional". You described yourself as "very close with the development team", which suggested the kind of close involvement with the subject which makes it difficult to stand back and write from a neutral point of view. If you sincerely believe that you wrote "from an unbiased point of view" then that is a good illustration of one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guidelines strongly discourage writing about a subject to which one has such a close connection, namely that one may be unable to see how one's writing will appear from the detached perspective of an uninvolved third party, and thus perceive as neutral writing which does not look neutral to others.
A speedy deletion tag was removed at 8:10 (UTC) on the 11th of February, by someone using the account "Sirzoop". If, as you say, it was not you, then it was someone else sharing the same account. Please don't continue to share the account, as doing so is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and may lead to being blocked from editing. An account is for use by one person only.
Contrary to what you say, I did read the talk page before deleting the article.
Since you have asked to have the article restored to give you a chance to improve it, I have restored it and moved it to Draft:Dubtrack.fm. It can be moved back to article space when it is ready: that way, the risk of speedy deletion while you are working on it is unlikely to arise.
My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.. Whether you choose to take that advice or not, I am sorry that you have had such a negative early experience of editing Wikipedia, and I hope your future time editing will be successful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) By "very close with the development team" I mean I spoke with them in depth about the history of the website. If that is considered a conflict of interest then I am very concerned with your understanding of how to properly gather information.

2) Yes, I accidentally removed it once. If you read the talk page, you would have saw that it was almost immediately put back by another user. After making various improvements, the speedy deletion tag was removed by a third user. On a side note, I am very insulted by your accusations that I have shared my account. I have never done such a thing and you have no basis to say that!!!

3) If you read the talk page, you would have seen that a third person removed the speedy deletion tag. Also, if you commented on the talk page I would have had the chance to rewrite the article in a more neutral tone.

4) I thank you for restoring the article in draft mode and I will attempt to rewrite it in a more neutral tone.

5) Why should people be forced to do things a certain way when they have in fact not broken any rules? I do not have a conflict of interest by writing this article and never have. I properly added many independent citations that proved that the article was noteworthy of having a place at Wikipedia. I do not see how I need to learn more, considering I have followed every rule.

Finally, JamesBWatson I may get very passionate sometimes but I would like you to know that I do not take any of this personally and I understand that the article does need to be improved. I would like to apologize if you were offended at any point and I look forward to us moving forward and becoming friends :)

Sirzoop (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you were "insulted by [my] accusations that [you] have shared [your] account", but if you carefully re-read what I wrote, you will see that I did not accuse you of anything. You had said that you had not removed a speedy deletion tag, and I saw that someone using this account had done so, so I said that if it wasn't you then it was someone else sharing the account: I did not say that had in fact happened. Also, even if you thought I was saying that I thought you had shared the account, there would be no reason to be insulted by the suggestion. Practically everybody who edits Wikipedia started doing so without knowing about all the policies and guidelines, and many people come here with a shared account because they have no idea that doing so is not accepted: if I see someone who seems to be doing that, I explain to them that it is against policy, to help them, not to accuse them.

You ask "Why should people be forced to do things a certain way when they have in fact not broken any rules?" However, I wasn't suggesting that you were "forced" to so anything: I was simply offering my advice on what, in my experience, is most often the easiest and most convenient way to learn to edit Wikipedia. You are perfectly free to take that advice or not, as you prefer.

I hope these remarks (or at least some of them) will be helpful to you, but please let me know if there's anything else I can help with. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 18)[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 appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Draft:Dubtrack.fm, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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 User:Sirzoop/sandbox 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.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I rewrote parts of the article to be a more neutral tone and submitted the draft instead. Best, Sirzoop (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dubtrack.fm (February 22)[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.

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:Dubtrack.fm 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 05:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]