User talk:2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5807:44C5:B2E2:159C

User talk page behaviour
Hi, if you're going to come to my talk page to complain and criticise, could you at least have the courtesy of following the page rules, namely posting at the bottom of the page, signing your comments, and not messing with previous comments by other users? Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * In line with your aggressive tone here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DoubleGrazing you have now come and attacked me on this talk page. I was not aware that I had messed with (?) the comments by anyone else. What did I do? I copied a heading. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5807:44C5:B2E2:159C (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apart from what I already mentioned, posting on the top of the page and not signing your comments, you've posted into and hijacked the oldest thread on that page. That's what you did. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Parse what you have just said here. I save in error. When I came back to fix that mistake, I wsa unable to do so. Note that you now shifted your focus from the article to the talk. I made a number of reasonable comments - but you opted to go on the offensive. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5901:4349:E64D:6569 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is my comment. Apologies for saving over existing comments by other user. Note that you have shifted focus now to the talk and not the article. This is line with deeply unprofessional tone of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DoubleGrazing
 * == == Note about Declined Wiki Page ==
 * 
 * Ref your comment
 * >This could well be notable, but the sources cited are almost all primary, and many offer only passing or no mentions directly of the subject, and therefore are insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT.
 * Also, the tone is promotional. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)<
 * 1 You say this is promotional in tone. You are mistaking 'not negative' for promotional. The author is in no way connected with the industry or the company. There is not much that is objectively negative about the company. Neutral can be positive - and that's not the same as promotional.
 * 2 There is a lack of in-depth material on this company online, in part because the company initially suffered because of the internet. You say the sources cited are primary. To be clear here, there is one citation - and yes, it's primary. There are secondary sources for the same information, but I suspect they sourced the information from the primary source too. This is normal when referring to sales information.
 * 3 The article contains virtually every online reference to the Letts company. There is an existing article about Thomas Letts which contains a lot less references and falls far below the standard being applied here. To say that there are insufficient references is begging the question. For many topics, Wikipedia is the primary reference.
 * 4 Letts is a major manufacturer of a culturally significant product. If you can find any factual errors, please fix them. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5901:4349:E64D:6569 (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a handy feature on talk pages that allow you to properly comment on talk pages labeled "New section". Generally this will start a new topic below all others
 * As for the article, it does come off promotional and would probably need a rewrite on the topic, as well as avoiding primary sources (as already been told). Try and find sources that reference the topic as more central to the point, and that aren't just links back to the company. Izzy Moony Hi new friend!  10:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Izzy. There is something live 15 references. I think what's happening here is that each reader is reading the commentary first. Positive will always come across as promotional. There is very little negative about the company- therefore it will always sound a little biased. It's really not. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5901:4349:E64D:6569 (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are 17 references. 3 are primary. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5901:4349:E64D:6569 (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

My talk page
You have edited my talk page nearly 20 times today, and I still don't know what you actually want from me, so I'm going to ask you now not to edit it any more because this is starting to get disruptive. If you have questions regarding the draft review process, please take them to the AfC Help Desk. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)