User talk:JoolsRun

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, JoolsRun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as BGC Partners, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, JoolsRun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Secret account 04:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Speedy deletion nomination of BGC Partners


A tag has been placed on BGC Partners, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Re deletion
"Don't waste a minute wondering why the hell a NASDAQ listed company with offices around the world would give a shit about trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. Ridiculous. I created the article because I thought it was stupid beyond belief that Wikipedia couldn't tell me anything about the current title sponsor of a sports tournament being broadcast on BBC Two throughout the afternoon for two weeks here in the UK. We're not talking about some unimportant little startup here for Christ's sake. Jesus. --JoolsRun (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)" - We're used here to promotional attempts coming from all levels of business and industry ~(and music and 'literature'). No matter who the company, unless it is as obviously as notable as Microsoft or IBM, you have to show notability. WP:CORP and WP:RS are where you need to look to find out more. In the previous versions, no references have been given. This time, no references are given. Without them, and a bit more indication of notability under WP:CORP, it'll go again. Not all companies fit our standard. I came across a big successful company with no coverage. It made own-brand products for supermarkets. Nothing at all was sold under its own name. Only the employees, the supermarkets purchasing dept, and the Infernal Revenue had heard of it. Here, only the company site is linked. No good. May be 100% accurate, but if you'd seen some of the ones I have you'd realise why we don't trust any own sites. (Some of the sites appear to be all there is of the international industrial group - I'm not kidding.) It's up to you to provide references showing that this company is known about. Otherwise, all you say is original research WP:OR.... Peridon (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you need to seriously re-evaluate your thinking if you really believe this company would be bothered about using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Obviously their grand plan is to spend thousands of pounds to sponsor the Masters snooker tournament, just so I would notice their name and write an article on them. Do me a favour! What I wrote on the company was factual, and the issue is not lack of sources, it's the fact people cannot be bothered to look for them - it was put up for deletion after 5 minutes! JoolsRun (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, both big and small attempt to promote and hijack articles. It's not up to us to provide your article with references. If you won't or can't, so be it. Believe me, we get claims of all sorts made here. When references are given, we try to check them (and found that one person had even created two online 'newspapers' to back up a load of twaddle he was posting...). If you don't want to give references, please don't complain if the article gets deleted. I've not deleted it - but someone else will before long. If you try again, make sure there are references when you put it up, or the title may get protected from creation. Does happen, when unsuitable articles are repeatedly created. You may disagree with our policies. They are in use until changed, and you are quite free to try to get them changed. Takes a lot of work. Finding references is easier... Peridon (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful about telling others about policy - given the fact you seem to know absolutely nothing about basic concepts like WP:BEFORE. It's not your job to look for references? Think again. That is if you are actually interested in building an encyclopoedia that currently has a serious imbalance in what is and is not covered. The Wikipedia editor demographic is basically school/college age nerds. That's not really going to fit your model where you seem to think editors should only write about things they are intimately involved in. I appreciate it must be really easy to just assume everyone writing about companies is a paid shill or is otherwise up to no good, but maybe you should open your eyes a bit, and consider whether you're helping or harming the project with this approach to new content you have. How quickly do you think Wikipedia would have been built back in the day, if every new creation was perfect out of the box? Or more importantly, if people had to spend two or three hours looking for references, before they even created an article. It never would have got off the ground, and that's a fact. I definitely won't be looking for references in this environment, and I won't be complaining either, I'll just leave, as it appears most new editors do these days based on the studies of such things I've seen. JoolsRun (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not  helping  your cause. Any  more attacks on  our  authors here or on  the deletion  discussion and you  may  be blocked from  editing and that  will  be the end of it. Whatever your concerns are, there is no  reason  why  you  shouldn't  express yourself in  a civil  manner. Please see WP:PA and WP:CIVIL.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of BGC Partners for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BGC Partners 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/BGC Partners 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

heads up
Just to let you know, you have been (see either or ) accused of sockpuppetry]. --WR Reader (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Masters (snooker)
With all  the words and time  you  spent  on  the talk  page (and again not in a friendly  tone), you  could have  done it yourself. FWIW, as a snooker fan, I find the article exceptionally  informative and reasonably  well  written. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did try and fix it, which was extensively explained on the talk page you claim to have read. Unfortunately I met someone exactly like you over there as well, who rudely reversed what I did wholesale, although in the ensuing discussion to their credit they never complained about my tone as a replacement for answering my points, even though they're completely wrong in everything they subsequently said to try and justify their actions. I'm glad you like the article, it would be interesting to see you make those claims at a quality review, to people who have heard of topical sections and know their value to readers who won't wish to read the entire article just to get basic data, and don't consider a very long piece of narrative prose that jars it's way through random facts and jumps between high level summarisation to total shot by shot detail, as being anything near "well written". JoolsRun (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)