Jump to content

User talk:Ronster007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hi Ronster007! I noticed you created an article about Ron Shlien and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find these resources helpful:

In particular, based on the Ron Shlien article and your edits to Mad Science, I recommend becoming more familiar with:

I hope you find these resources helpful. If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here: Get help at the Teahouse

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! POLITANVM talk 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Ronster007. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Mad Science, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you: avoid editing or creating' articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. If you do not have a conflict of interest, please still familiarize yourself with how to edit Wikipedia, including correctly citing and appropriate use of images/external links. POLITANVM talk 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronster007 (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Hi [User:Politanvm] Thank you for taking the time to comment on this article. I am new to the community and trying to figure out my way around...it's complicated!  :) I went through the neutrality test offered by Wikipedia and tried to provide references to every claim as carefully as possible to ensure that I am in keeping with Wikipedia neutrality rules. I will read more in the days ahead and definitely need to better understand how to use the reference tool to auto add citations and references. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated so that I learn quickly without creating issues. Please feel free to make changes or provide guidance. many thanks Ronster007[reply]

Ron Shlien moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Ron Shlien, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ron Shlien[edit]

Hi Ronster007. Please take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability (people) for reference. You appear to be trying to create an article about yourself which is something that is highly discouraged. I'm sure you mean well, but there are lots of issues that need to be cleaned up or clarified before this draft is ready for the main space. Please take a look a pages such as Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners and also Wikipedia:Manual of Style for some general ideas on how article's are expected to be written and formatted. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing for general reference as well. As long as what you're working on is a draft, you'll be able to do so at your own pace and then submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you think it's ready for review. As a draft, other editors will pretty much leave you be and only edit the draft if there's some serious policy or guudeline violation that needs to be addressed. Once something is added to the mainspace, however, it's there for anyone to pretty much edit at any time whether you want them to or not; some of the editing might actually be imrpovements, but someone else could just as easily nominate the article for deletion if they feel it's not ready. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Ron Shlien[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:Ron Shlien, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was essentially nothing usable in that draft. If you want the references as a starting point to trying again, those could be bundled somewhere or something. WilyD 10:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Ronster007, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Mad Science have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ron shlien[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 Ron shlien, 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. Praxidicae (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop writing about yourself. If you do it again, you will be blocked. Praxidicae (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC) (Ronster007 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)) Hi User:Praxidicae, i am simply trying to figure out a minimum common denominator to contribute this info on Wikipedia. I will certainly do as recommended but am wrestling to understand if the issue is the author or the content. Either way, I hope that someone else can take it from here. Many thanks Also, please note that I followed the recommendation of Wily[[User talk:WilyD|D] and started with simple easy to reference material.[reply]


Ronster, I got your email. The way Wikipedia works is that you are probably the person most likely to write this article. However you need to do it in a way that conforms to our policies and not repeatedly recreate it. You say you got my feedback but I see that you did not choose to take that feedback - going through AfC as you should have, but instead choose to recreate the article at a different name. That is disruptive and will not, ultimately, be helpful in getting Shlien covered in Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronster, to answer the question from your email, Ron shlien and Ron Shlien are considered two different names by the Wikipedia software. So that is what I meant when I said you chose to recreate the article under a different name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ronster, you're asking for my help in the latest email. As a volunteer, the help I have to offer is not to edit the article for you but rather letting you know the issues I see, resources you could use, and a process you could follow to achieve success. I don't know if you've looked at the resources I've given you, or thought about the issues I've pointed out (with examples). But I can tell you that you haven't followed the process and, from my perspective, aggressively not followed that process. And, as an experienced Wikipedian that failure, given the promotional nature of the content, is a problem. Addressing that is the first step you can take towards getting this article up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ronster, it would be helpful if you replied to me here rather than continuing to email me. In terms of what you can do, if you agree we can move the article back to draft space. Then you can begin to correct the promotional material. Once you think it's ready you can submit it to the Articles for Creation reviewers to see if it would be approved. If you reply here agreeing to that, I'm happy to make it happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ronster, yes, that would be really great
I think I'd say pretty much ditto - since we're all volunteers, and writing articles is a lot of work, most people aren't going to put in the effort unless they're really interested in the subject or something. Wikipedia:Your First Article has a lot of helpful advice, and links to a lot more. If you have some specific question most people are generally pretty happy to answer, but writing articles, especially from scratch, is a lot of work so it's a much bigger ask. As such, it's probably typically not the best place to start from if you're interested in being involved. WilyD 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ruckify (July 29)[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 Theroadislong 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.
Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Ronster007! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I changed the language to be more neutral but the sources are all 100% credible news outlets so not sure what to do there. Hope it's better now

Looking through the sources, Ruckify doesn't seem to be notable. You can see the thought process on the talk page. If Ruckify isn't notable, there's nothing to be done - it shouldn't be an article, no matter how well written. That said, there were still some issues with the article as you'd written it, including:
  • Text copied directly from Ruckify's website. That's a copyright violation. See WP:Copy-paste.
  • An external link in the body of the article
  • Parts still didn't seem like NPOV. Think to yourself, "How would this be written in a published encyclopedia?" Would an encyclopedia say, "premise to enable members to participate in the emerging sharing economy," for instance?
  • Formatting issues, like having a newspaper style bolded headline
  • Removing the AFC template
Myself and the other users that have commented on your talk page understand that editing Wikipedia can be tricky. There are a lot of policies and guidelines, and it's not expected that new users will have all of them memorized. That's why it's best to start smaller, by editing existing articles and seeing how others edit. People have gone out of their way to share specific feedback about guidelines that would improve your drafts. As you become more familiar with editing Wikipedia, these guidelines will become second nature. There's no need to rush to publish brand new articles. I hope you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia. POLITANVM talk 03:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronnster007:, I hope you don't mind me replying to your email on your talk page. This way, other users with more experience can weigh in, and it's easier to link to relevant pages.

For your questions on Draft: Ruckify:

  1. Local media is fine, and can be reliable, but in this case the issue is notability. Please read WP:CORP to understand how notability is determined for companies. Specifically, the Audience section (WP:AUD) discusses how subjects that only receive local press may not be notable. I'm not an expert on notability, so there's not much I can explain other than what's in the guideline. Ruckify may be notable, but it isn't obvious to me whether it is or isn't. When you decide to submit the Draft for review, the reviewer will likely err on the side of being more critical.
  2. You mention that the founder of Rickify, Bruce Linton, is notable. This doesn't help the case for Ruckify's notability, because notability isn't conferred from one notable entity to another. Again, please read the notability guidelines. For example:

    Further, sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).

  3. You say "Ruckify is a major disruptor in the rental space and is already the largest rental marketplace in the world. How can this not be notable?" It's up to you to find source that support this claim (and even then, you should write it in a neutral way). If this is the case, then there should be no trouble finding:
    1. significant coverage in
    2. multiple
    3. independent,
    4. reliable
    5. secondary sources.
  4. Noted that you don't have a COI for Ruckify - I don't think anyone had claimed you did.

For removing the COI notice Mad Science, I believe there's still some work to be done. I haven't looked through the external links to identify which should be removed or added as references. I also haven't reviewed all the details of the NASA partnership. I'll leave a note on the talk page explaining why I placed the notice, so others can weigh in if they would like. POLITANVM talk 01:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ruckify[edit]

Information icon Hello, Ronster007. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Ruckify, 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. Bot0612 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ron Shlien Email response[edit]

Hi, in regard to your email as apart from private/confidential issues most editors prefer to converse openly. I hadn't reviewed Draft:Ron Shlien I just did a couple of tweaks in passing as I try to do a daily trawl of new submissions. I have a list of over a thousand other drafts I hope to help get published and there are over 4000 submitted for review so as I have no personal interest in the subject (or most BLPs ) I wont be editing further - although someone who encourages children in STEM sounds good. What you need is to show how they meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) - generally this requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. To help along as I have access here are a couple more sources you could use (I didn't read the articles just did a quick search and grab). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

References

  1. ^ "High theater - and slime- make science fun". The Miami Herald. 29 July 1996. p. 52. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  2. ^ "Mad-about-science brothers take schoolkids by storm". The Gazette. 7 May 1992. p. 73. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  3. ^ "Dry ice; fast flames; Poof! 'Mad Science'". The Miami Herald. 6 March 1993. p. 320. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  4. ^ "Growing with a mentor". The Province. 24 October 2005. p. 21. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  5. ^ "Mad Science's shrewd business plan". National Post. 27 December 2002. p. 77. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  6. ^ "Mad scientists crack formula on profits". The Gazette. 28 May 2000. p. 3. Retrieved 13 February 2021.

Hope that helps. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ruckify[edit]

Hello, Ronster007. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ruckify".

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! 20:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ron Shlien (May 4)[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 PK650 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 people). 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.
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.
PK650 (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ron Shlien[edit]

Information icon Hello, Ronster007. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ron Shlien, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronster007&oldid=1048098338"