User talk:Jesse003

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Bitquence


A tag has been placed on Draft:Bitquence, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 "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. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bitquence (August 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

The comment the reviewer left 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:Bitquence and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  22:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. My protection of the article title was due to an error in reading the logs, now removed. I deleted your draft article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, press releases, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Most of your text was unreferenced, and several of your "references" were clearly blogs, press releases or other promotional material.
 * There is no indication of why it meets the notability criteria I've linked above. Your text just describes what it's claimed to do, and "new and emerging" and "start up" don't suggest significance.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: aims to make the crypto world accessible and safe for everyone... If you are part of the cryptocurrency world everyone is talking about Bitquence and the problems the company is solving... dedicated team of professionals... His vision...  successful&mdash; and so on, fact-free spam
 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated or promotional sites.
 * You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:     . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or should be deleted as well. See other stuff exists.

Before attempting to write an article again, please check that the topic meets the notability criteria I've linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read this important guidance. You must also reply to the COI request above

Ping for info Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Bitquence(BQX) is a new and emerging cryptocurrency ..." :: I have never had any Bitcoins or anything similar (for which I was thankful when the Daily Telegraph had news when the real-world-money value of Bitcoins crashed). I keep out of such things and I have no experience of using such things. I agree that the article is advertisory. Best wait until there is independent newspaper or television news about Bitquences. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ping <br. There is nothing to be thankful about, not owning something that has gone from 20 cents to $5000 in 18 years is not exactly something to be thankful for. No one in the crypto world would trust anything coming out of an news agency such as Daily Telegraph because like yourself they don't understand it. And what people don't understand they fear. The value of bitcoin crashed ... did it? Perhaps for a day, that's normal business as usual. Anyway what I am writing about has nothing to do with bitcoin. But it seems it's difficult to write about something barely anyone outside the world of cryptocurrencies understands.

It may appear on or in independent American newspapers or TV, or perhaps an episode of the Simpsons eventually. But really all those agency's care about is bitcoin and posting about only when there is not so great news. This is not where we get our news from. We get it from independent established news websites that have been around over 15 years, that only report on cryptocurrency related news. I will create sources for that I guess.

This has been a real eye opener actually. I really understand wikipedia a lot better now.

Jesse003 (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying your position. we tend to assume that people whose first edit is a promotion for a product or company are likely to be involved in the company, but I'm happy to accept what you say about not having a COI. However, the real issues are that your article was highly promotional in tone and did not have adequate independent references. The first of these should be fixable, and the second depends on what you can find. You say it's difficult to write about something barely anyone outside the world of cryptocurrencies understands, but that's a matter for clear writing; the fact that Anthony and I don't share you expertise doesn't mean that we can't identify spam when we see it, and we are experienced at checking whether references look to be genuinely independent third-party sources
 * I'd urge you again to read this guidance, and perhaps get some practice making edits to existing articles rather than jumping straight in at the deep end.
 * Note that it's only chance that I saw your comments above. If you want me to see a reply, you can post on my talk page. You can alternatively leave a message on this page, and I will know you have done so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~ when you post it. That will send me an alert. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jimfbleak

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the comments I have reread the this guidance and I get what you are saying it's a lot to take in even after reading it twice. I decided to post here so it's all in one place as I get confused otherwise.

You are correct the sources are not ideal, other than coinmarketcap.com. Any coin in the top 100 is considered a big deal. I figured more is better than less so I put everything in. I guess I will go with less. There will be many more sources within a few weeks or a month so I will put it on hold until then.

I have edited wiki's before just not specifically Wikipedia, more alternative wikis. What prompted me to write one was several other cryptocurrencies not in the top 100 having wiki pages, but again they have been around for a lot longer so sources are easier to find.

Can you please clarify spam links. Doesn't seem like the correct term. Do you mean links that can be edited by users or paid for by sponsors? The term spam doesn't really fit by my definition so it really confused me.

Thanks again for the response. I will put this on hold until I can find acceptable sources.

Jesse003 (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * spamlinks may not be the right term, but the main point is that there shouldn't be any url links in the body of the text. url links are obviously necessary in the references to link to relevant web pages, and can be used in external links, but only if directly relevant to the topic. So normally the only acceptable external link is the company's main website, not subsidiary pages of links to other companies Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)