Jacqueslamontagne

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dispatch Science (July 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Nearlyevil665 were: 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:Dispatch Science 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:Dispatch Science, 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.

nearlyevil665 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jacqueslamontagne! 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! nearlyevil665 20:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello Jacqueslamontagne. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jacqueslamontagne. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jacqueslamontagne|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. --- Possibly ☎ 21:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dispatch Science (July 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 was: 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:Dispatch Science 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:Dispatch Science, 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.

nearlyevil665 21:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

This line has been modified in my submission:

If the submission is still not acceptable, would it be acceptable if one of our customers or a member of the general public published this content instead of me - without any kind of compensation from me or my company?

I am not attempting to hide my affiliation with Dispatch Science, but at the same time, I do believe adding Dispatch Science to Wikipedia is a worthy contribution, so I am trying to find the best way to achieve my goal. Any additional suggestions in this regards will be much appreciated.

--Jacqueslamontagne (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed these templates. {{paid}} is the proper template for your userpage and {{connected contributor (paid)}} is for the talk page of your draft article.

Since you have the proper disclosures, you are permitted to submit your proposed article. However, the reviewers have commented that this topic doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable enough for inclusion. Please have a look at Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies; we require significant coverage of the company (not just brief mentions) from multiple reliable, third-party sources. Trade publications are often rejected as sources because they tend to be promotional in nature; company-authored sources such as social media and press releases are self-published and lack the required independence; primary sources such as a company website or interviews with company personnel can confirm basic facts and figures, but cannot establish notability.

One last thing; please post new talk page topics at the bottom of the page. If you are replying to an existing topic, then please post your reply at the bottom of the topic section. That keeps the discussion flowing in the correct chronological order and makes it easier to understand. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Thank you for your much appreciated assistance, particularly your fixing of the template.

I do not understand the reason why my submission is considered not sufficiently notable by the reviewer community when Dispatch Science's primary competitor, American company Onfleet, has received a different treatment and is published on Wikipedia, yet they have no more notable references than those I included, including the one from the reputed Financial Post that I recently added. My claim is that this introduces an appearance of bias or preferential treatment from the reviewer community by including Onfleet but excluding Dispatch Science.

I appreciate any kind of clarification on this matter.

Kind regards,

--Jacqueslamontagne (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jacqueslamontagne: I checked Onfleet; you are correct, in that it does not appear notable. I have nominated it for deletion. Regarding bias, I might point out that the editors reviewing your company's submission have no connection to the company, whereas you are working there. The reason you are having trouble getting the article published is that it is likely not notable (yet). Once enough independent newspapers and other sources have written about it, it will be notable. If you have been given the task of creating an article on Dispatch Science, then let your employers know that that is an unachievable task in many cases, as most small companies do not meet our WP:NCORP guidelines. It's not something that can be done by saying "hey, go and make our Wikipedia page". Finally, please familiarize yourself with WP:PAYTALK, and be aware that everyone you are dealing with regarding the Dispatch Science article is an unpaid volunteer. Thanks. --- Possibly ☎ 16:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jacqueslamontagne: We often caution editors not to compare their own articles to existing articles on the same topic (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). With over 6 million articles on English Wikipedia, and an entirely volunteer-based community of editors, bad articles can and do slip through the cracks. The article you're comparing to may be equally unsuitable and should be deleted - it's just nobody has noticed it yet. Articles must stand on their own merits to meet the requirements of notability, verifiability and neutrality. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Thank you for the information. I will remove my submission pending a significant growth in the notoriety of our organization.

I appreciate the polite, yet concise, information exchange and support the Wikipedia community has provided (I contribute to Wikipedia 1x per year on a personal basis).

Kind regards,

--Jacqueslamontagne (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Contributions don't carry any importance on-wiki... I never give them a cent... just time. --- Possibly ☎ 17:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dispatch Science (July 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asukite was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Dispatch Science 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:Dispatch Science, 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.

 A S U K I T E  15:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)