User talk:JJNelson

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baird Brothers Fine Hardwoods (January 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chrissymad 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:Baird Brothers Fine Hardwoods and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Baird Brothers Fine Hardwoods, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Baird_Brothers_Fine_Hardwoods Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chrissymad&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Baird_Brothers_Fine_Hardwoods reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  20:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baird Brothers Fine Hardwoods (January 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac 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:Baird Brothers Fine Hardwoods and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Baird Brothers Fine Hardwoods, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Baird_Brothers_Fine_Hardwoods Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primefac&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Baird_Brothers_Fine_Hardwoods reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood, I apologize. I am just frustrated by the lack of objectivity and fairness in the review process. The lack of logical thinking by my current reviewer is stunning. JJNelson (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps before you start insulting experienced reviewers, you should read the guidelines and policies given to you. But I'll break it down even more for you, since there have been three different reviewers declining for the same reasons.

Cheers. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1.) Being a BBB accreddited business is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia and establishing notability. There are millions of businesses that are "accredited" by the BBB.
 * 2.) This is an interview and can be used to verify content in the article but is in no way independent or useful in establishing notability.
 * 3.) This is a profile/ad and not coverage and certainly not independent.
 * 4.) This is an interview, it cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 5.) Isn't coverage of Baird Bros. It's a fluff piece
 * 6.) Sources 6 and 7 are a combo interview and fluff piece - neither of which can be used to establish notability.
 * 7.) This is a directory and not at all useful for anything encyclopedic.
 * 8.) Another listing, not coverage. Entirely primary.
 * 9.) I'm not even going to link it, but it's Angie's list. Not coverage and not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
 * 10.) A generic google search is neither useful or valid as a source.
 * 11.) A single passing mention.
 * 12.) A single passing mention.
 * 13.) Not an RS, not coverage. It's a blog.

How is #5 not coverage of Baird Brothers? It was a report on the event that they held at their place of business with interviews of people attending the event. So my question is this since I have tried countless times to find out what is acceptable instead of being told what is not acceptable: What sources would you consider to be reliable and give the company notability? And don't direct me to the Wikipedia guidelines page, I want you to explain in your own words and give me actual names of news companies that you accept. JJNelson (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a local fluff piece with virtually nothing about the company. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Again...what sources would you consider to be reliable and give the company notability? And don't direct me to the Wikipedia guidelines page, I want you to explain in your own words and give me actual names of news companies that you accept. Would any of these be under your guidelines...   JJNelson (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not have personal guidelines. I follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as community consensus which I have both explained in my own words, layman's terms and linked you directly to. You're free to interpret it how you please, but the bottom line is the rules are the rules and I'm not going to continue debating them with you. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the rules are the rules until people realize that the rules do not make any sense. The issue is exactly what you stated, Wikipedia's 'rules' leave far too much room for interpretation. Which is why people like you and I, sit here and argue over the opposing interpretations. I also find it quite ironic that Wikipedia will not let an article be published that does not have 'reliable and notable' sourcing. Yet no high school or college will accept ANY of the material on this website as a valid source. JJNelson (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Baird Brothers Fine Hardwoods has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Baird Brothers Fine Hardwoods. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, JJNelson. 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. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with 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). Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 16:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Chrissymad. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. and for your information unencyclopedic is a perfectly acceptable word, http://www.yourdictionary.com/unencyclopedic Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

yourdictionary.com ... what a joke. Editors that don't use Merriam-Webster or Oxford. Yet still won't let articles be published because of 'notability'. Keep the contradictions flowing. Using the dictionary you cited as an editor is like a lawyer not using Black's Law Dictionary. For your information. JJNelson (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)