User talk:CNMall41

Archives

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Hey CNMall41, Thanks for taking the time to review my article submission. I saw the feedback boxes you gave me about WP: NCORP and WP: ADMASQ. I just wanted to quickly ask for a few more specifics, so I can improve the article and make sure it meets Wikipedia’s standards.

I based much of the article on two main sources, MacRumors and TidBITS, which I understood to be respected, independent outlets that align with Wikipedia’s definition of good sources. Both articles were in-depth pieces specifically about the company's bankruptcy and history. Both are secondary sources with no link to the founders (as far as I can tell, please do let me know if I'm missing something).

Both sources have established themselves as reliable and trustworthy on Wikipedia.

However, I’m open to the possibility that I may have missed something or misinterpreted how these sources are evaluated. As well, would it be possible for you to provide a bit more specific feedback on which parts of the article seemed to sound like an advertisement and whether certain sources were problematic?

I’m genuinely aiming to make the article neutral and properly referenced, and any additional guidance would be greatly appreciated.

I've been having trouble trying to find a reliable compendium of facts on what this company actually offered, all on one page, hence the kinda... sporadic sourcing in the services section.

I completely understand that your time is valuable, and I don’t want to impose or demand a response. I would just like to ensure that I’m improving the submission in the most effective way possible.

Thanks again for your time and consideration. Titfortat-skag (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are considered reliable for a WikiProject, not for notability. We based things on WP:NCORP and you can find a list of reliable sources at WP:RSP which should assist you. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to help with this draft that was not approved? FloridaArmy (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one depending on how you read WP:NFILMMAKER. If you read "is notable" (meaning it just needs to verify they were one of the roles listed, then he is likely notable. I can find sources verifying but always like to see something that talks more about him in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee tamil edit you have changed iis correct information and reference with source of popular articles and you are deleted I have no problem you will get serious problem I will report and information are deleted Zee telugu old serial name also deleted why it is also referred from channel past one week In zee keralam Madhura Nombara Kaatu is official remake of na kodhalu Bangaram serial not remake of peranbu I have referred all and you are deleted I will report Be ready for every thing Arun GKA (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I would consider this to be some kind of threat, except that it is barely intelligible. BD2412 T 12:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412:, if you look here you can see that user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. Is there enough for a block or would you recommend ANI? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just went ARV as they continue to disruptively edit pages. I'm doing a mass revert now. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue here as well. BD2412 T 21:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a possible SPI issue. I have connected at least two accounts but gathering more before filing for CU. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been blocked for two weeks. If they're sockpuppeting, I would expect them to move to another new account and continue this behavior. BD2412 T 21:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CNMall41. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Stacii Jae Johnson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to help with this declined draft? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy:, Do you have access to Newspapers.com by chance? I will take a look now but that site has always helped with drafts and pages such as these. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I don't know about you but I would much rather disagree with an experienced respected editor than having to battle a UPE/sock (or a hoard of them). S0091 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I never mind disagreeing. Its Wikipedia. Seems to be an issue for some at the moment (not you) who want to assist UPE and argue for the sake of arguing. Puzzling but it is what it is. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more arguing for the sake of it rather than assisting UPE, though that might be the effect. Some editors could care less about UPE (including AfC/NPP reviewers), which I get if the article meets N or at least close-ish (enough for a valid argument) but, like you, that's not what I seeing with some these AfDs and worse to me not engaging in discussion which is the purpose of an AfD (i.e. this is my opinion and I am not going to address any questions/explain how sources meet the guidelines so disengaging but let me bold/ all caps things on my way out). If you are not willing/able to engage and think you need to bold/caps things then you are not doing a good job explaining your position, in my view. S0091 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you hit the nail on the head ("arguing for the sake of it rather than assisting UPE). Pushing aside UPE concerns for the sake of "need to be right" is how I would put it. The "assisting" is just a byproduct of it I guess. I get the bold and not discussing as well. Frustrating, especially when a closer will sometimes look at number of keep or delete votes from experienced editors and not always at the rationale behind those votes. I have been seeing a lot of keep or delete votes that I ask for clarification on with no response. And for the record, I think you and I agree on the validity of the sources for this page in particular. I believe the disagreement is coming with how much weight they have towards notability which is always a good discussion to have. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]