User talk:GregLChest

Welcome and introduction
Hi, GregLChest. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ► 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusion
Hi.

I'm sorry for all the difficulties.

I thought I would reply here; it might be clearer than on my own page, which is often very busy.


 * Regarding the title: you don't need to worry about it.

The large heading at the top of all pages is the name of the page, and the title. This page - here - says User talk:GregLChest at the top, because that is the exact name of this page. The article on sausages shows Sausage at the top, because the page is called Sausage.

Your draft is located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart, so that's what it shows, at the moment. But, if we 'accept' it, it will be moved to a new name, with no prefix - it will become SpiderGraph chart.

Therefore, there is no need for a heading saying == SpiderGraph chart ==

It's fine.


 * Regarding the deleted images

The easiest way to give unambiguous permission, is to send an email. You could copy/paste the exact text in the example page User:Chzz/help/myboilerplate, fill in the filename information, add a date, and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org


 * Regarding references

References are essential. You cannot just say, "This is true" based on personal knowledge. You have to say where the reader can "check the facts". And they must be published, reliable sources.

If we are to have an article on "SpiderGraph chart", we have to show that it is covered in several independent references, that are not directly connected with it. Independent people writing about it. If it is mentioned in the "Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation", then great - that helps; but, it needs more than that. The article must show why this thing is "Notable" - and for Wikiepdia, that is done through using several independent reliable sources.

For example, you wrote that "This SpiderGraph charting has only one application". We have to tell the reader where they can check that. I imagine it could be checked in the publication that you describe as "Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., 32,1, 178-180, January 1985." perhaps?

I am guessing that that refers to the magazine called Control Engineering, which we have an article about: Control Engineering (magazine). I am not sure what the "32,1" refers to? Is that the issue number, or something?

Assuming for the purposes of this example that the specific fact that it "has only one application" is in that magazine, then we would add a reference something like so;

 This SpiderGraph charting has only one application.&lt;ref>"Chester, G. L., "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs", Control Engineering, issue 32, p. 178-180, January 1985.&lt;/ref>

It must have references. That is the only really important thing.

You cannot say things like, "Maybe the confusion between a SpiderGraph chart and a Radar chart started because both charts look like a spider web" unless there is a reliable source that makes that connection.

And Wikipedia itself - the Radar article - is not a reliable source.


 * I hope that helps to clarify things. I'm sorry you've had so much trouble - but please, take your time; there is no deadline on Wikipedia. Editing should be fun, not stressful. I'll help you in any way I can - as will other editors. Most of the problems you are having are due to the "Conflict of Interest" I mentioned - because, clearly, you know about the subject; paradoxically, it can be easier to write articles about things you do not know so much about - because, then, you have to rely on information that comes from reliable sources. That's one of the reasons that 'conflict-of-interest editing' is discouraged; it's hard to be neutral, when you are so closely involved with a subject.

Best,  Chzz  ► 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Saturday
Hi!

Is there any chance that you could click on this thing, type in the wiggly-letters and a nickname, and 'talk' to me (via text) there?

If not, it's no bother, and I will answer you on the wiki. I thought I'd try. Cheers!  Chzz  ► 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Archives
Hey, I moved some of the older messages from this page into an 'archive' - User talk:GregLChest/Archive 1. I hope that's helpul; if not, it can be undone, of course.  Chzz  ► 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

...and regarding the email/picture, I believe one of the people with access has replied to you, trying to help sort it out. I don't have access to that system, myself. Hopefully you can sort out the permission by email.  Chzz  ► 15:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehow
Hi.

Ehow is not a 'reliable source'. That's because anyone can edit it. See Identifying reliable sources.

Sorry that your edits were blocked by the filter, but we have to disallow links to websites like "Ehow" - it's rather like a science journal refusing anything that cites "MySpace". I hope you understand.

I'm quite happy to try and help you though, if I can. Best,  Chzz  ► 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

11 December
 Chzz  ► 03:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Some useful links & helps
...that should help you create your article: Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Referencing for beginners
 * Notability guidelines
 * Reliable sources

I have tried to fix the first references to the Chester article. The Wikipedia software will do the numbering of references automatically, please take a look at WP:Referencing for beginners.

What I did was take what you placed in your article as [1], looked for that reference down below and then converted it tino a Wikipedia inline-citation, like this:

You had... 1985 G.L. Chester's article: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," (featuring the "SpiderGraph," which was developed in 1981)[1]

I then converted that into...

and added underneath the "References" header which makes the references section look like:

References

1. a b Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985

I found another [1] and converted the second [1] into which automatically numbers the references within the article, so all the places where that [1] appeared now reference the Chester article.

Hope this helps, --Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing Help Channel
I will try to be in the Wikipedia Editing Help Channel the rest of the day today. I have alerted an administrator (matthewrbowker) who's usually in Help about the various difficulties you've been having on your draft, so hopefully between the three of us we can get your AfC straightened-out. Shearonink (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart‎. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. There is no need to sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. mabdul 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart
I've done some editing to your draft-article, but I think you need to be aware of some issues:
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide...Please be aware that you have a conflict of interest with creating a neutral article about this concept, you seem to have come up with the concept, it is hard to maintain a neutral point of view when you are so involved with the subject.
 * You must remember to sign your posts on talkpages or on noticeboards in Wikipedia with four tildes, they're those funny things at the top of the key that is to the left of the "1" key, Doing so will automatically add a time/date/talk link along with your Wikipedia name to the end of your post.
 * I am not sure you have proven notability. I am not saying that the concept itself is un-notable, what I am saying is that you have not proven it.  Are there articles about the concept, are there articles about its invention, are there articles about how influential the concept has been, are there articles about how the SpiderGraph was originally invented, are there articles about how other companies have stolen it from you, etc.
 * A Wikipedia article is not an essay, written for a press release or a magazine, it is an encyclopedia article. Verifiable facts from reliable sources with no editorializing is what's appropriate.  The writer of a Wikipedia article is supposed to be invisible and should not refer to themselves within the body of the article.
 * Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, I removed exclamation marks and references to me/my/mine within the text. I know that you have worked hard on this article, and might be upset that some of your work has been altered but no text on Wikipedia belongs to any one editor or belongs to the person who wrote it.  Once you committed the text to a Wikipedia page and hit Save you were giving others permission to alter your work.  Any adjustments I have made to the draft were done only to make it conform to Wikipedia style and content guidelines.
 * I tried to fix the refs as best I could but I simply don't understand where all the numbers go and what exactly in the text you are trying to reference.
 * I don't understand what this deadline you have mentioned in some of your posts (I think this Friday?) and I am sorry but I have other responsibilities to attend to for the next several days and will be unable to do any further work on your draft. Please ask for any further help in the  Wikipedia Editing Help Channel.  Thanks and good luck, Shearonink (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hiya, GregLChest! I've been following your article (and Shearonink's activities regarding the article) since you mentioned it to me in the help channel a few months ago.  I have a couple things I'd like to comment on...


 * Your name is the same as the person who invented the subject. Furthermore, you used lots of I's, me's and my's in the first draft of the article.  That tells us that you have a very strong conflict of interest.  I understand that you really want the topic included, but you really haven't shown us that it should be.


 * Also, your citations are just plain over the place. It's impossible for me to decipher anything from those citations.  Why don't you read this page for information about how Wikipedia does citations?


 * Sorry to be blunt, but I'm trying to be honest. Please visit us in the help channel with any other questions, as many of the people you've been contacting have lives that are increasingly demanding their attention.  The live help is better, because it allows us to give you feedback in real-time and improve your article faster.  Thanks and sorry for the trouble. ~  Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 10:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ^^What SIneBot said. Please sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes...    ~ . Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

GregLChest
You only are supposed to sign your posts on talk pages, not your work on article-pages. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! mabdul 23:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
mabdul 12:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
mabdul 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is something to check: if you had entered your signature "Gregory L. Chester" in "My preferences", be sure the "Treat the above as wiki markup" box is unchecked, as having the box checked will cause your username to not be linked to your user page automatically. That is likely why the bot has posted the above message to this page. PleaseStand (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 SpiderGraph chart, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * SpiderGraph chart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Relationship, Relationships, Axis, Method, Implications, Feature, Features, Lifecycle, Product, Products, Conclusion, Normalized, Radial, Aggregate, Circular, Complex, Axes, Trends, Disciplines, Plotting, Plot, Feelings, Quantitative and Ordinal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For what happened to that missing image....
See and.

Wikimedia Commons is the image repository for the Wikimedia/Wikipedia project. For the moment you should probably concentrate on fixing the remaining issues with SpiderGraph chart, any possible remaining image issues (Like the required permissions) can be fixed later. Shearonink (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Start hand.svg Greg, mabdul did not delete that redlinked image, you are mis-reading the information in the edit history. At this time the image does not exist at Wikimedia Commons.  I am not sure how long the OTRS process can take for your resubmission of today's information to be approved.  Please refer to my immediate post above before you delete/add image-information to the article or before you post again about this issue. Shearonink (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your questions on my talk page

 * I hope that you get it all straightened out with the image issues, OTRS is really the only venue for getting that
 * If you think there are errors of facts in the article at the present time, you'll need to read and follow the instructions at: Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject).
 * If you wish to cut/paste the version of the SpiderGraph draft from before it was accepted as an article, you can look in 'View History'. There is a version from February 23rd, click on this link.  You can cut/paste this version into your own files, the past edits can always be found in any Wikipedia article by using the 'View history' tab.
 * I have no special powers here on Wikipedia, I really cannot delete an article or do any of the various tasks you have asked of me on my talk page. For any further assistance, 1)Please contact OTRS about the images, 2)Please follow the instructions at Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Shearonink (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2
Hi. When you recently edited SpiderGraph chart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Features, Comparing and Decisions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. When you recently edited SpiderGraph chart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Method (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Gregory L. Chester 02:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

'''Please Remove
and Refer to "Talk:SpiderGraph chart" for Author's "Objection to Deletion" and Response to the concerns mentioned in the 3/27 "Notice of Proposed Deletion" of the WP Article "SpiderGraph chart." ''' Gregory L. Chester 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 00:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

'''Please Remove
and Refer to "Talk:SpiderGraph chart" for Author's "Objection to Deletion" and Response to the concerns mentioned in the 3/27 "Notice of Proposed Deletion" of the WP Article "SpiderGraph chart." ''' Gregory L. Chester 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The article SpiderGraph chart has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article has many faults. It fails WP:N. It appears to be based on a single 1985 journal article by G. L. Chester. Secondary sources endorsing this particular chart are absent. The SpiderChart may not even pass WP:DUE. References 12 (Programmable Controls Magazine) and 13 (Plant Engineering Magazine) are narrow publications; neither quotation suggest the authors are skilled in the field. Other journal sources (e.g., Lurie) extoll the virtues of charts for decision making, but no indication that those sources mention SpiderGraphs. If the chart is notable, then there should be secondary sources that cover it. The thrust of SpiderGraph chart and SpiderGraph chart sections is a WP:NOR argument that other sources are wrong in that they fail to distinguish a SpiderGraph from a radar chart aka spider chart. That is advocacy rather than a WP:NPOV. There are links to blogs. The primary editor here has a WP:COI in that he is the author of the 1985 article. The CamelCase title (SpiderGraph) and component (FeatureLine) suggest an advertising tone that touts Chester and Divelbiss Corp.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Glrx (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of SpiderGraph chart for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SpiderGraph chart is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/SpiderGraph chart until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Glrx (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a policy of no legal threats. You are continually claiming trademark infringement: see, for example, this edit. Although you are not threatening to file suit, such comments can be perceived as legal threats. Consequently, I would like you to clearly state your position. Do you intend to pursue legal action with respect to your trademark? Glrx (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr Chester, your response to me in this discussion was exceedingly uncivil, hypocritical, and hostile. I have borne you no ill-will; I simply stated baldly my opinion regarding your excessively verbose argumentation. Do not take it upon yourself to teach me what you have yet to learn yourself. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: your message to me
I'm really busy right now, so I fear that I can't give you a decent response; however, I'll do my best with what time I have. Regarding the deletion of User:GregLChest/SpiderGraph chart, it's not a big deal. Immediately before I deleted it, the page had very little content; aside from a template that asked for the page to be deleted, its entire contents were as follows:"#REDIRECT SpiderGraph chart"It was a redirect page, which is a page having nothing except code that tells our software to take you to a different page when you go to the redirect page. By the time that I found it, the "target page" (the one to which you're sent when you try to go to a redirect page), SpiderGraph, had already been deleted. Because there's no reason to be redirected to a deleted or otherwise nonexistent page, our speedy deletion policy permits the immediate deletion of pages that redirect to nonexistent pages. Therefore, nothing I deleted was of any substantial import at all. For your situation, the big issue is the deletion of the SpiderGraph article. I can't help you with that now, but I'll see what I can do. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

re SpiderGraph chart article
I'm not sure what to say. What's happened has probably been both shocking and bewildering, and I'm sorry for that.

You've had a long experience with the article. There were several drafts while it was at AfC, and those editors tried to point out the trouble spots. The article was eventually accepted, but that put the article into WP article space where other editors could view it. That's were I came along. I didn't think the article was appropriate for WP, so I propose deleting it (which is called a "prod").

When an article is proposed for deletion, a single editor can stop the proposal by deleting the prod in the article. You clearly objected, so I removed the prod. I still didn't think the article was appropriate, so I nominated the article for deletion (called "AfD"). AfD is analogous to AfC: AfC is a way to bring articles in, and AfD is the way to take them out.

The SG article wasn't just deleted out of the blue. It was deleted as the result of a well-defined process. The SG article actually got an extended review.

The usual process at AfD is a week-long debate. Any editor gets to comment the article during the week. The editors give reasons for keeping or deleting the article (or some other options). At the end of the week, an unbiased admin examines the debate and decides what to do. Normally, the keep or delete decision is made after one week. After the week was up, there were only a couple comments, so an unbiased admin relisted (extended) the debate period for another week. Some more comments arrived. Then a second unbiased admin looked at the discussion and decided to let the debate run for another week. By the end of the third week, the comments were something like 10 to your 1 to delete the article. The reviewing admin must be unbiased. Also, he doesn't just count votes. He looks at the comments, weighs them, and decides which side has the better position. A majority votes does not rule. The admin, after that review, decided to delete the article.

Reviewing editors look for particular kinds of sources. Articles require several independent secondary sources that show the article's subject is notable. Narrow trade publications don't carry much weight; general publication carry more weight. Self-published works, press releases, company websites, and even patents are not independent of the subject. Consequently, those sources carry little to no weight. Basically, notability is a measure that a section of the public has taken notice of the subject of the article. Some articles, such as the one you wrote about the SpiderGraph, are consider primary sources -- they offer the first description. Primary sources are also discounted because WP is not evaluate a subject. Instead, WP waits for outside authors to publish sources that survey the developments in a field and pass judgment on what is important. That's a secondary source, and that is what feeds WP articles. What we needed to see were several articles in reliable sources that compared SpiderGraphs to other charts. We didn't find, and you didn't provide, those sources.

Many of your complaints were that you could prove a SG had certain features. That doesn't work because WP doesn't allow editors (they are called editors and not authors) to do original research or to synthesize new material from other sources. It's an important rule. It means that even non-technical editors can verify statements in WP by just going to the cited source.

The reason the vote was so one sided is that the other editors understood the requirements. The requirements are often relayed in short codewords such as WP:RS and WP:N that may be difficult to digest. By the way, when an editor says WP:TL;DR doesn't mean the text was not read; it means the editor thought the text was too verbose and poorly focused.

Sadly, the debate became a bit contentious. I understand the reasons why that happened, but I don't know what to say about it. WP editing can be abrupt, but we ask editors not to take it personally, and we hope that other editors don't either. You were claiming that other editors were not understanding you, but I think those editors believed you were not understanding them. It may be that a few did not understand, but out of ten editors, none supported your view. That's significant.

You've commented that some editors have not responded to your inquiries. They actually have, but one custom is to respond to a question where the question is written -- that way the whole conversation is in one place. User:Shearonink responded to your question here on the same day.

I hope the above explains what happened. If you want a copy of your article to put in user space, I think any admin would be willing to do that for you. I think Mabdul identified an appropriate version here.

Glrx (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)