User talk:JARI12988

Title Need Capitals
Can someone please fix the lowercase i on "insider' and change that to an upper-care I? This is for the Royalty Insider Wikipedia page

Speedy deletion nomination of Royalty insider


A tag has been placed on Royalty insider, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sionk (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Royalty Exchange
Hi thanks for message. It's not just me that thinks this is spam. Last edits (apart from bots) were
 * 22:54, 28 October 2014 . . The Banner (talk | contribs | block)  (16,579 bytes)  (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11)
 * 16:20, 28 October 2014 . . Sionk (talk | contribs | block)  (16,536 bytes)  (repeated and sustained additions of promotional material, see alsos, formatting etc. - added "advert" template)


 *  I just want our company listed here because it is not only a new company, but a newly invented type of marketplace.&mdash; You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the notability guidelines, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * You bolded every occurrence of the company name and what it sells
 * it's all about what the company sells, little about the company itself other than locations. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?
 * You have a section for recognition, nothing reporting criticisms
 * Conversely, most of the text is describing how you operate, because that's what clients want to know. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include:  full details and legal documentation regarding all presented assets... provides asset owners flexibility... raising expedited capital... serial tech entrepreneur... team of professionals... numerous online auctions have been successfully closed...

It's clear from your contributions that you have no interest in this project beyond creating multiple articles which, intentionally or not, promote your companies. You are not in a position in which you can write a genuinely encyclopaedic article Jimfbleak - talk to me?  18:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well said! I dropped in here to say exactly the same thing. I originally moved your article (written by JennyA12988, presumably the same person) to mainspace because Royalty Exchange had clearly been widely noticed by the national press (presumably because of its novelty). There is scope to create a simple, dry article based on these news sources. But repeatedly filling the article with business jargon, sloganeering and promotional formatting will only get Wikipedia editors seriously annoyed!! Sionk (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We are taking the time to re-visit the Wikipedia guidelines. I would ask that the level of force in some of our choices of wording just be brought down for I am only trying to do the right thing.  I did re-post and get rid of the bolding and a couple other things.  We do not have critical media coverage that we are aware of. We were granted the permission to create this page back in August. I am having the web editor take over this for she has a more neutral tone.  I am going to send her my original content and have her neutralize the tone, eliminate anything promotional or "sloganeering" which I really do feel there was not a ton. Please consider being a little nicer.  Like I said, in no way am I trying to promote or advertise for our company.  We have plenty of Social Media out there and PR to cover those needs for the company. JARI12988 (talk)
 * Ok, we'll see what happens. You will appreciate that pages about companies and products are always going to receive extra scrutiny for obvious reasons Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, and I do understand that, but there is no need to be rude about it. This really is not the place for that.  When people like myself make a mistake- I repeat- a mistake, then I feel that what Wikipedia wants is for other article editors to provide positive feedback.  Feedback was provided, but in a very unnecessary rude manner. All I was looking for was positive feedback so that my company can be presented professionally not "sloganeeringly." Thank you. I am moving forward with the few positive suggestions that were provided.