This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs) at 04:44, 16 January 2017 (→Draft:Nextiva: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:44, 16 January 2017 by Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs) (→Draft:Nextiva: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
  Facebook •  Twitter •  Foursquare • .svg){kind=small} Google Plus 
|
 Archives | |||
|
|||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Re: Mass
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Draft:Nextiva
I have moved this to draft space. Considering that this article has been deleted multiple times, it is disruptive to constantly create it again and again. Please submit it through AFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think that move was made preemptively as you are not even an administrator. The current version of the article is buttressed with multiple sources that establish clear notability. The article should be moved to Nextiva and it should be discussed on the talk page--whether it should be kept or not. If you have any COI issues Lemongril1942, you should disclose those now. Thanks, Jobas (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Jobas. My edit summary made it clear that this article is very unlike any older versions as it now contains twenty-six footnotes. I'd also like to find out why User:Lemongirl1942 is so invested in the articles relating to Tomas Gorny and Nextiva as well (as seen from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tomas Gorny (3rd nomination). Would User:Kagundu like to move the article back to mainspace? How about at Nextiva? Thanks! --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 02:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Renzoy16, if you have been paid to create this article/have a COI it is helpful if you disclose (and considering that this article has been deleted multiple times, it needs to go through AFC). I am seeing a pattern of promotion here btw, repeatedly trying to create an article which has been deleted. Please note that this is disruptive as it wasted a lot of community time. If I am not wrong, the Nexiva article was subject to a lot of promo pressure and I see User:DGG, User:Kudpung, User:Jbhunley, User:Brianhe, User:K.e.coffman, User:Duffbeerforme and User:Voceditenore have previously been involved in it. I guess they can have a look at it as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I believe it is already declared paid editing via his userpage. Brianhe (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Renzoy16, if you have been paid to create this article/have a COI it is helpful if you disclose (and considering that this article has been deleted multiple times, it needs to go through AFC). I am seeing a pattern of promotion here btw, repeatedly trying to create an article which has been deleted. Please note that this is disruptive as it wasted a lot of community time. If I am not wrong, the Nexiva article was subject to a lot of promo pressure and I see User:DGG, User:Kudpung, User:Jbhunley, User:Brianhe, User:K.e.coffman, User:Duffbeerforme and User:Voceditenore have previously been involved in it. I guess they can have a look at it as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Brianhe. (I somehow missed the user page). The instructions at Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution_disclosure#How_to_disclose were clearly not followed here then - the article talk page in question had no declaration. If I am not wrong, it also needs to be declared who is the "client" and the "employer". I don't see that here either. Is this a violation of our Terms of Use? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Lemongirl942: per WP:PCD employer, client and affiliation should be listed in at least one of the designated places which includes the userpage. But it appears Renzoy says he went through an agency that acted as a proxy for the actual client, which makes proper declaration impossible. I think agencies like Upwork function this way. - Brianhe (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- If I am not wrong, the consensus at a previous incident was that
COI editors will comply with the Terms of Use by disclosing employer, PR Firm, and clients.
I don't see that happening here. Rather, I see suspicious accounts spring up and trying to comment here (See below). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- If I am not wrong, the consensus at a previous incident was that
- @Lemongirl942: per WP:PCD employer, client and affiliation should be listed in at least one of the designated places which includes the userpage. But it appears Renzoy says he went through an agency that acted as a proxy for the actual client, which makes proper declaration impossible. I think agencies like Upwork function this way. - Brianhe (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you Brianhe. (I somehow missed the user page). The instructions at Misplaced Pages:Paid-contribution_disclosure#How_to_disclose were clearly not followed here then - the article talk page in question had no declaration. If I am not wrong, it also needs to be declared who is the "client" and the "employer". I don't see that here either. Is this a violation of our Terms of Use? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's right User:Brianhe; Renzo followed WP:PCD to a point. It's not really fair that you're trying to WP:CANVASS a ton of editors to oppose him. If you can do that, I think people who supported the existence of Nextiva and Tomas Gorny on Misplaced Pages should be notified too: User:RHaworth, User:Kagundu, User:KGirlTrucker81, User:Sionk, User:Unscintillating, User:Bmbaker88, User:CNMall41 and User:Gargleafg. However, this really isn't the place to be discussing this. The article should be moved back to Nextiva in the mainspace and be discussed on the talk page. Panthersfan3472 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- You created a brand new account to just comment here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- And considering the fact that you (a seemingly new editor) came here all out of the blue, it's a bit hypocritical of you to talk about canvassing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's fair to ask me, because I don't oppose articles on companies if they are good enough, and I always give a realistic opinion at AfC is I am asked, regardless of my personal preferences. Sections 1 and 2 of the current article are promotional. Normally non-promotional articles on small and medium size companies list only the CEO, so I find it indicative that for this one, the one other person listed is the marketing director. If the article is returned to mainspace, the odds are pretty good that it will be deleted again, and re-creation blocked.
- The draft devotes itself to how the company does things good, It mentions trivial charities, thus proving there are no significant ones, it includes flattering quotes in the references from ordinary internet sources, it usea local business journals as references (they are just outlets for PR--in some cases here the same text is reprinted in multiple local sources which clearly shows where they got it, and it uses references that give mere mentions. As Lemongirl942points out, the TOU have not been fully followed. That alone is reason to reject an article, but it correlates with why we require the declaration--articles by paid editors are almost never satisfactory, and usually do have many of the problems I mentioned.
- If the firm is really notable enough for an worth an article, a person without COI will write one. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I share DGG thoughts on this entirely, Lemongirl942 is absolutely right, and as an admin I operate the same way. Nevertheless, DGG works more in this area than I do and , for me at least, is therefore a higher authority. What I will say in plain text however, in case it is not clear, is that a declaration of paid editing is still not a licence to write promotional articles. If we are honest, apart from large multinationals, to cite for example Microsoft, Apple, Nissan automobiles, and Texaco petrol, or American Airlines who don't need the additional presence on Misplaced Pages at all, every other attempt at a corporate mention on Misplaced Pages has marketing as its background. We see thousand of new articles a week of this kind, so we do know, and we keep statistics of it. Where I and DGG differ, is that I am probably quicker to block any user accounts that I consider to be misusing our ToU, and to block any IP that I think they might be using, not to mention that certain Misplaced Pages functionaries, of which DGG is one, have the authority to use some special technical tools that locate users and IP users and can of prove conclusively that IP users and different named account are coming from the same building and locality if not from the same computer. We are extremely quick to block accounts that are using proxies in order to cloak their identity and location. to advertise themselves and their clients in promotional pages masquerading as bona fidae articles about notable companies, schools, and other organisations, including even charitable non-profits. We do understand however, that the WMF, the organisation that owns the servers and the Wiki software dos not do a very good job of telling new users on registation exactly what they are allowed to write and what is not acceptable. The bottom line ntwithstanding, is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a B2B directory and is is built and run by unpaid volunteers who are not happy about people and organisations making a profit from volunteers' work.110.77.218.90 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)(user:Kudpung, not logged in because I'm using a public connection)
- right--I try to deal with the articles primarily. But I will block promotional-only accounts that repeatedly try to add advertising. And many promotional editors are sockpuppets, but other people are more skilled at dealing with that. Personally I support blocking any undeclared paid editor on the basis of persistent violation of the Terms of Use, but this is not yet policy. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I share DGG thoughts on this entirely, Lemongirl942 is absolutely right, and as an admin I operate the same way. Nevertheless, DGG works more in this area than I do and , for me at least, is therefore a higher authority. What I will say in plain text however, in case it is not clear, is that a declaration of paid editing is still not a licence to write promotional articles. If we are honest, apart from large multinationals, to cite for example Microsoft, Apple, Nissan automobiles, and Texaco petrol, or American Airlines who don't need the additional presence on Misplaced Pages at all, every other attempt at a corporate mention on Misplaced Pages has marketing as its background. We see thousand of new articles a week of this kind, so we do know, and we keep statistics of it. Where I and DGG differ, is that I am probably quicker to block any user accounts that I consider to be misusing our ToU, and to block any IP that I think they might be using, not to mention that certain Misplaced Pages functionaries, of which DGG is one, have the authority to use some special technical tools that locate users and IP users and can of prove conclusively that IP users and different named account are coming from the same building and locality if not from the same computer. We are extremely quick to block accounts that are using proxies in order to cloak their identity and location. to advertise themselves and their clients in promotional pages masquerading as bona fidae articles about notable companies, schools, and other organisations, including even charitable non-profits. We do understand however, that the WMF, the organisation that owns the servers and the Wiki software dos not do a very good job of telling new users on registation exactly what they are allowed to write and what is not acceptable. The bottom line ntwithstanding, is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a B2B directory and is is built and run by unpaid volunteers who are not happy about people and organisations making a profit from volunteers' work.110.77.218.90 (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)(user:Kudpung, not logged in because I'm using a public connection)
- Thank you User:Lemongirl942 for your input. With the comments being stated here, I may try (unless any other editors here would like to undertake the task) of submitting the article to AfC at a later date (when I get time). I am confident that with all the sources there (as well as its notability), it would pass that venue at this point (while before it may have not). AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 03:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- As DGG said above, you are not complying with our TOU. If you don't comply, that is good enough grounds to reject an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I complied with the TOU by disclosing on my user page. However, if you'd like me to do so on the talk page, I'd be happy to oblige. Enjoy your day. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 04:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- No you haven't. You haven't declared the employer, client and affiliation. That needs to be declared. It's not optional. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I complied with the TOU by disclosing on my user page. However, if you'd like me to do so on the talk page, I'd be happy to oblige. Enjoy your day. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 04:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- As DGG said above, you are not complying with our TOU. If you don't comply, that is good enough grounds to reject an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)