User talk:Cicivasc

Your submission at Articles for creation: Goldmund (May 27)[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 Lapablo 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:Goldmund 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:Goldmund, 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, 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.

Lapablo (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cicivasc! 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! Lapablo (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article declined[edit]

Dear Lapablo, I see the article has been declined the reason being it looks like advertising. Can you advise what part of the article should be removed/edited to suit Wikipedia needs? I hope the fact I was transparent about my connection to the company is not biasing your perception about the page. I do believe we are fairly eligible for referencing. For your information, our company is mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compact_disc_player_manufacturers and it is the only company without a Wikipedia page. And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phonograph_manufacturers . Looking forward to your feedback. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicivasc (talk • contribs)

May 2020[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you Drm310 ! I confess I am a bit struggling with the talks and so on... I'll do my best. Stay safe Cicivasc (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DIsclosing conflict of interest / financial interests[edit]

Hello Cicivasc. I will let Lapablo address the reasons about why your draft article was declined. I'd like to go over some of the things about disclosing conflict of interest and paid editing.

I can see that you have made a good-faith effort to be transparent, which we appreciate! However, you need to use some different templates instead of the ones you have chosen. If you have a financial interest in the company - e.g. you are an employee or are acting as their representative for financial compensation - then you are deemed to be a paid editor. In this case, declaring a conflict of interest isn't quite sufficient... you must follow Wikipedia's stricter policy on disclosure of paid contributions. This is what you do:

On the talk page of the draft, you use the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template. This tells other editors that you are being paid to create/edit the article, and who is paying you. I have taken the liberty of putting it there for you.
On your userpage, instead of the {{UserboxCOI}} template that you've used, you would use the {{paid}} template instead. The code would be as follows: {{paid|employer=Goldmund}}

After that, you are all set. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Drm310. I've done number 2. I know you said you did number 1, but when I click on sandbox I can't the tag mentioned on {{connected contributor (paid)}} template. So I've added like this.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Cicivasc (talk · contribs) has been paid by Goldmund on behalf of G9oldmund. Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.

.

I confess I've read some guiding pages but I am still struggling to understand all technicalities of wiki editing, commenting and retrieving feedback. Is there any detailed video tutorial you could recommend?

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Goldmund[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:Goldmund, 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. Spencer^T•C 18:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Cicivasc/sandbox[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 User:Cicivasc/sandbox, 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. Spencer^T•C 18:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi Cicivasc! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Page declined, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Goldmund has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Goldmund. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Goldmund (August 7)[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 Timtrent 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:

"turntables in the market.[15][16][17][18][19]" is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. A fact you assert once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder. This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia. I see you have declared that you are paid to create this article. Please start by understanding the Wikipedia policies for all articles

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:Goldmund 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:Goldmund, 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, 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.

Fiddle Faddle 09:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the comment at the draft to reflect the lack of understanding that you expressed in your help desk message. If you have questions please ask me on my own talk page or deploy {{ping|Timtrent}} in a reply here. To make the ping work you must sign your message using ~~~~ and place the template during the same edit before pressing "Publish changes" Fiddle Faddle 09:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Timtrent: Thank you for your feedback. I am reviewing the references as per your recommendation. I have published some edits to Goldmund draft page and will try to continue improving it. I did not click on "Resubmit" only on "Publish Changes". I don't know if you can access these edits. If you do see them could you advise if the references are good now or not and if you don't find this much, what exact references are inappropriate? Were Wired and Robb Report the only reputable sources on the list and all the other junk? Or is there other suitable references? Thank you in advance Cicivasc (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Goldmund (October 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 Robert McClenon 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:

There is currently a redirect from the title of this draft. If this draft is accepted, the redirect should be deleted, because the hatnote at the top of this page will take its place.

You may ask about redirects and hatnotes at the Teahouse.

This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject.

Not every business corporation is notable, and this draft does not establish corporate notability. You may ask for advice about corporate notability at the Teahouse.

See this essay about the reference-bombing of this draft with low-quality 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Goldmund 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:Goldmund, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Goldmund[edit]

Hello, Cicivasc. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Goldmund, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Goldmund[edit]

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

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. If 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!} 05:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]