Tabel dammit

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tabel dammit! Thank you for your contributions. I am KGirlTrucker81 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Essex Property Trust Inc (July 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Daniel kenneth 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:Essex Property Trust Inc and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Daniel kenneth (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Tabel dammit, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Daniel kenneth (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Offshore Oil Engineering

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 Offshore Oil Engineering requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of UDR Inc

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 UDR Inc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest

Hello, Tabel dammit. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson: I presume this is a reasonable place to respond? I'm unrelated to any of the topics I've written about. A company that I am affiliated with Krzana uses some data from Wikipedia company pages, which is what drew the missing pages to my attention in the first place, but the edits do not in any way affect my company, were made on my own time, were unpaid, and were made in the interest of improving Wikipedia. I'm receiving quite a lot of kickback about them, is there something about my approach that doesn't gel well in this community? I receive a lot of benefit from the resources provided by Wikipedia and I'm trying to give something back to it in kind, if I'm doing so in a way that isn't appreciated I'd love some guidance. Thanks a lot! :) Tabel dammit (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that your early experiences of contributing to Wikipedia have been in some ways not very encouraging, and I'm particularly sorry if I contributed to that: I didn't intend to. The reason for my wondering if you had a connection to the subjects you were writing about is that a new account that appears and immediately starts creating a string of articles about companies is very often someone paid to create articles for those companies, especially if the articles don't give very clear evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I was not by any means sure that was so in your case, but I thought I would drop you a warning in case it was.

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. However, I will give you a few comments relating to the articles you have created, to give you an idea of what is needed.

The main problem with those articles is a lack of suitable sources to provide evidence of notability. Some new editors, told that the articles they write lack suitable sources, proceed to add dozens of unhelpful sources, mistakingly thinking that the number of sources is the essential point, but it isn't: two good sources are worth far more than 20 poor ones. The sorts of things required are described in Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the most relevant ones in your case being the general notability guideline and the guideline on notability of organisations and companies. Unfortunately, in my opinion over the years the volume of guidelines and policies on Wikipedia has grown far too large, making it confusing and intimidating for new editors, and I don't recommend trying to read and learn everything before you do any more editing, but you should at least have a quick look at those guidelines to see what sort of thing is needed. Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, while not an official guideline or policy, gives a useful summary of various points relating to creating articles on businesses, and also links to policies and guidelines which you can turn to if you want more detail.

The central point of the notability guidelines is that the topic of an article should be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The requirement for "independent" sources means that in an article about a company a reference to the company's own web site, a web site advertising it, the web site of an organisation to which it is affiliated, etc, is of no value in establishing notability. (That does not mean that such references are of no use for purposes other than establishing notability: for example, a company's own web site is likely to be a pretty good source to confirm the identity of the company's CEO.) The requirement for "reliable" sources means, for example, that Facebook and most blogs are of no use, nor is Wikipedia, as anyone can post anything to Wikipedia, and despite our efforts to remove unsuitable content it is impossible to rely on it. Turning to a couple of examples of articles you have created, I see that Merlin Properties has no references at all apart from the company's own web site, while Jiangxi Ganyue Expressway is sourced only to another Wikipedia article.

I still suggest following the advice I gave above to stick to making minor improvements to existing articles for now, and perhaps continuing to create new articles when you have more experience of how Wikipedia works. However, that is only advice, and it is up to you to decide whether to take it. Certainly the articles you have created have far fewer problems than articles created by many new editors. If you do choose to continue creating articles, the matter of sourcing is the main thing to concentrate on, and if you are going to continue to create articles about companies then I do suggest having a look at the pages I linked to above, especially Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations, if you haven't already done so. And do feel welcome to contact me again if you have any more questions. I can't promise to have the answer to everything you may ask, but I will do what I can. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson Thanks for your advice, and please don't feel concerned - your feedback's only been helpful, I'm just trying to judge how the community works. Looks like I need to use sources outside of wikipedia to back up my claims of notability (they are all billion dollar companies, and constituents of the ten largest indexes in the world, but I can see why that isn't demonstrated/independently corroborated on the pages I've created). Much appreciated, and I'll fix them up when I'm not at work :) Tabel dammit (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, I don't agree with either of the speedy deletion nominations of articles you have created, and since both of the nominations have been declined by administrators, I am clearly not alone. I therefore don't think you need to worry about likely speedy deletions. Some editors do not clearly grasp the difference between "the subject of this article is not notable" and "this article does not have references to show that its subject is notable". The first of those is a reason for deletion, but the second isn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ANIMA

Hello Tabel dammit,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged ANIMA for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Lithopsian (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I initially declined this for speedy deletion A7 because membership of FTSE MIB is a credible claim of importance. However, after noting that they are not included on the official Borsa Italiana list I have deleted it anyway as promotion. SpinningSpark 15:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Essex Property Trust Inc

Hello, Tabel dammit. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Essex Property Trust Inc".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. MCMLXXXIX 02:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)