User talk:Dodikbobik

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Refspam
Hello, I'm Amatulic. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page logo, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Reactions to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Logobee


A tag has been placed on Logobee, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to userspace
I've moved the article to your userspace at User:Dodikbobik/Logobee. I didn't really edit it except for this one mention of an anonymous RipOff Report. That really bothered me that this was added, as this could be read in multiple different ways- none of them good. It could be seen as a way to shame either the company or the person who reported to ROR, as they were anonymous. Saying that it was anonymously filed could be seen as a way to discredit the individual, pressure them into revealing themselves, or to say that they feared the company enough to where they didn't want to give their name. In other words, people can bring a lot of negative connotations to either party. When it comes down to it, we never use stuff like ROR in an article unless the specific report has gained a lot of coverage. Most ROR never do and the site is almost always used to air grievances without anyone truly expecting anything to come from it.

Now one thing I do want to note is that since the article has been re-created so many times and been deleted, I've salted the article (WP:SALT) to prevent its recreation. This doesn't mean that the article can't be re-created, just that I want to be able to ensure that the article you create passes our notability guidelines. If you can find the sourcing and prove its notability, we'll unsalt the article and move the page back. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing is still poor
I'm pleased to see that you've attempted to improve the article.

You should be aware of what Wikipedia considers a quality source. Please review Identifying reliable sources and Verifiability.

The sources currently in your draft article are mostly press releases.

Press releases are not acceptable sources. We need sources that demonstrate significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of Logobee. The press releases are written by Logobee, so they cannot be considered independent or significant.

The couple of other sources do not provide significant coverage of the company. As the article stands, if it were moved back to main space it would be quickly deleted again as an advertisement (because it relies on press releases, which are basically advertising). Even if not speedy-deleted as advertising, it would not survive a WP:AFD deletion discussion because there is no evidence of notability &mdash; and notability the way Wikipedia defines it is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. You might have an argument with the award won although you'd have to demonstrate that the award is notable also.

Keep trying. If the company is notable enough for inclusion, the sources should be out there. We want to see coverage in Business Week, Wall Street Journal, other national business publications, or at least regional (not local) newspapers or magazines. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Amatulic,
 * Very much appreciate your involvement and bringing light to this matter.
 * I somewhat agree with you about the notability issue. If you are talking about sources like Business week or Wall street journal. That basically limits Wikipedia entries only to the big shots. This is what tripped me at the first place. I understand Wikipedia doesn`t want to become a yellow pages for businesses. But the reality is - it is already. Only for big shots though.
 * Forgive me for going back to comparing logobee to logoworks, it feels very natural to seek similar sources and compare your material to them. The only difference between them and logobee is that they received 9 mil. $ that is the only "notable " source they have. So basically it was enough for Wikipedia to see that the company got the money to include them in to encyclopedia. Continuing my investigation about what kind of links logoworks provided:
 * this one is no longer available http://www.benchmark.com/news/sv/2005/06_20_2005.php
 * This one to me looks like advertisement, there is no author to this source http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0702/gallery.nextnet.biz2/23.html
 * Another one of their sources again business related ( so how is that not considered an advertisement?) http://web.archive.org/web/20070428125037/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/24/ap3647395.html only because it says HP at the tag line?
 * This is a press release http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/09/logoworks-reopens-under-new-ownership.html, it is signed by the editor but it is a paid release.
 * This looks like a blog http://www.creativelatitude.com/articles/article_0905_wurth.html You had rejected blogs as not notable source.
 * And this one is not available http://www.startupjournal.com/columnists/enterprise/20050614-bounds.html.
 * If I had to compare these both articles I find logobee has done way more for the community than logoworks that only concentrates on business investment.--Dodikbobik (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, let's go through these. All of them are available if you look in the right archives.


 * The first one you list is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20091216153120/http://www.benchmark.com/news/sv/2005/06_20_2005.php and it's a press release.
 * The next one, http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/biz2/0702/gallery.nextnet.biz2/23.html is a regular column from a notable tech business news magazine (Business 2.0) which was acquired by a highly notable news organization (CNN). It isn't significant, but it is coverage.
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20070428125037/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/24/ap3647395.html is an article in Forbes magazine, another nationally-distributed verifiable and independent reliable source. Not only that, this is a reprint of an article by the Associated Press, a large, neutral, independent news service having international scope.
 * http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/09/logoworks-reopens-under-new-ownership.html appears to be an independent article and not a press release, although it is possible that it's a paid article.
 * http://www.creativelatitude.com/articles/article_0905_wurth.html is not a blog, but the description of the website suggests that its articles consist of user-generated content, so it's questionable coverage.
 * And the last one is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20050617011015/http://www.startupjournal.com/columnists/enterprise/20050614-bounds.html - this is significant coverage by the Wall Street Journal.


 * So we have coverage by Forbes, Associated Press, CNN, The Wall Street Journal &mdash; exactly what I was talking about. This is enough to establish notability. The fact that the article also contains unnecessary press releases and a couple other possibly unreliable sources doesn't detract from the notability established by the acceptable sources. Bottom line, Logoworks met the threshold criteria for inclusion, in exactly the way I described in my previous comment.


 * Your comment about the "big shots" misses the mark. It is possible, as indicated by Logoworks, for a small company to get coverage in national publications. It is also a fact that companies don't get Wikipedia articles for being up-and-coming. They must have already arrived. So, yes, it is much easier for a big shot to get an article on Wikipedia. We are not a business directory, so we have to draw the line somewhere. WP:42 summarizes the criteria nicely. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nicely put. I totally get it. Thank you. I see that the content is not really relevant as to the source of the content. Not really amazed by that, but I see your point. I still feel some very aggressive attitude of some editors on Wikipedia. My addition to Montreal article was bluntly removed, with a mark of being "promotional". It is really an absurd. I added several major NON profit events, that Montreal is famous for, and it was considered promotional. In my defense I stated that if a company produces soap or cars you can mention that in the article, why is that a city producing an event is considered "advertisement" and "promotional"? I`m having hard time trying to figure out some of the editors here.--Dodikbobik (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to The brand new awards, the nominator identified two rationales for deletion: WP:CSD (notability) and WP:CSD (promotion).


 * Even if an article has no sources at all, it needs to have some assertion of why the topic is significant (first? biggest? costliest? a national standard? a world record? things like that), basically explain why anyone should care. Just one statement like that would be enough to disqualify an article from an A7 (notability) speedy deletion. Note that this is different, and weaker, than the standard of notability than Wikipedia's normal standard, which requires significant coverage. It's enough to avoid speedy deletion, but avoid deletion through a WP:AFD discussion, sources are required.


 * That article had only one source, and it was what we call a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, not an independent secondary source. That, I suspect, is what made it look like a publicity piece. Some additional independent reliable sources might have avoided both the A7 and G11 reasons to speedy-delete the article.


 * This also underscores the value of new editors drafting articles in their own user space or at WP:AFC. At WP:AFC your article is reviewed by a more experienced editor, and you are asked to make improvements, before the article is accepted for publication in main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Amatulic, No, I was referring to my changes added to the "Montreal" article. I just added a new field there called "Events", with major events that Montreal is famous for. Thank you for your continues support!--70.28.27.57 (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The brand new awards


A tag has been placed on The brand new awards, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here.  GILO  A& E&uArr;  20:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logobee logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Logobee logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Dodikbobik/Logobee
User:Dodikbobik/Logobee, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dodikbobik/Logobee and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Dodikbobik/Logobee during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think the page must go live. Your criteria for nominating a company page is outdated. There are numerous useful and worthy companies whose contributions to the world has been noted, but not published by a "giant" publication. Logobee exists since 2000, won some awards and was running several nonprofit makeovers. Logobee published multiple tutorials, and spreading free graphics material during its operation. I see several companies listed in WIKIPEDIA in the same caliber with the only difference that they received a large sum of money and got published by a "BIG" "REPUTABLE" publisher. Dodikbobik  talk  11:34, 23 December 2015 (EST)