User talk:Robertjlang

Welcome!
Hello, Robertjlang, 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 R Lang &, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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, followed by your question, 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! Karl 334 Talk- -Contribs  16:19, 9 April 2013 (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

Speedy deletion nomination of R Lang & Associates


A tag has been placed on R Lang & Associates, 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, you can place a request here. Karl 334 Talk- -Contribs  16:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Hello, Robertjlang. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article R Lang & Associates, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Karl 334 Talk- -Contribs  20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Fumitol &#124; talk &#124; cont  11:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

advice and warning
I re-checked your article for creation submission. It remains highly promotional. It also contains unverified negative material about another entity. How can anyone possibly know if your claims about authorship of a film script are correct, without third party sources? and how can any one know if your claims for "re-inventing" the heart rate monitor are true without third party sources, either?

As reviewing administrator, I have deleted it under criterion G11 promotional, as I am required to do; I similarly deleted   the corresponding user talk page where you promote yourself in the same manner. Advertising and promotion are not permitted anywhere in WP. Please do not enter the same material again. There might conceivably be justification for an article, but  only if you have good sources, such as reliable magazines or newspapers, with the articles not based upon PR, I have given you a formal warning below.  DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Reviewer (May 13, 2013)
When I re-evalute the AFC: R Lang & Associates and really try to understand the reveiwer criticism, I have to say that I do not find a problem with this article. If it is stated as a history description, then it can only be intended as so. The intentions should always be clear. (Intentions can be the whole issue sometimes). I admit there may be something different about how it presents itself, but I cannot do anything about this - it is all true an accurate. (Remember, there is a notable criteria for any article). The main issue to be aware of in article writing is whether events, people, or places are falsified. This it is not. Also be aware that we are part of history each and every day. New things are still bound to happen in our lives (such as new inventions) that we may never be able to explain to ourselves, perhaps until the next generation is able to answer this question more completely.

As far as the type of medium we are dealing with, it should be kept in mind that although Wikipedia is thought to be a type of online encyclopedia - it is still a website. It is interfaced through elctronic media using PCs, laptops, and mobile devices; and this will always be the case. It is viewed from a pixel screen yielding "images" - points of light that radiate to the human eyes, redrawing itself at a rapid rate which the eyes cannot detect - called refresh rate - a phenomena almost decepting to the mind.

A website is just what it is - a web page that the unbeknownst user can become ensnared-in. Common knowledge, of course, is to practice a "pass ethic" since it is only a website and the information may only be firsthand. It is not considered an offical publishing. Those who delve farther into its content must know this - since their acts become the concern at this point, judging if they have understood and used the internet correctly. Disheartened, disdained, or confused by what's on the internet ? I suggest take a break. Go back to it later with a new perspective. You may see it differently. ~(User:Robertjlang - 5/13/2013)
 * Hi Robert, you clearly do not understand what Wikipedia is. You need to read the articles myself and other editors have referred you to. ie WP:RS, WP:N, WP:ORG. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia intended to highlight notable topics. I suggest take a break, and go to a web hosting company to design you a website. Karl 334  Talk- -Contribs  17:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Karl, Wikipedia is not a new outlet for torts. Nor is it a hobby corner for over-opinionated critics. I see too much opinion and not enough facing of facts. Some could be enjoying the inernet too much and think they found a new hobby. It takes real-world people to bide their time fairly with entities such as Wikipedia. I recommend the same: go to a web hosting company and build a website to your heart's content. Robertjlang (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

- DGG, I deleted your comments completely because, frankly, you do not know what you are doing. You deleted a drafted article that wasn't even submitted for review. It was only residing in working space, undergoing development. In that mode, it is none of your business. It is obvious you are to up to something no good, and you will be reported. Robertjlang (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

--

At this point, both of you are under suspicion of foul play, including bribery. You cannot fool me. You will both need background checks. Nor are either of you properly represented. It takes no special talent to snitch around the internet and take out your personal torts on peoples writing. It is quite so obvioius that you are over-opinionated in your comments, and under the influence of an ulterior motive. Tsk. Robertjlang (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some salient reading
Concerning your deleted AfC submission, regardless of its state at the time of deletion, it was clearly in conflict of interest as implied by your user name (see WP:COI for more information). To wit, editors on Wikipedia are required to avoid substantial editing pertaining to themselves or topics with which they have a personal connection. I hope this serves to clarify somewhat. Furthermore, nebulously accusing other users of editing in bad faith under undefined "ulterior motives" is a personal attack. If you have credible evidence to suggest other users are editing in bad faith for a specific reason, please take the complaint to the appropriate venue rather than accusing them. Unfortunately, not knowing precisely what agenda you are accusing others of harboring, I cannot make a direct suggestion as to which venue that would be. - Vianello (Talk) 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

... More Food for Thought
For a country that has experienced a trend of self-destruction since 9/11 (i.e., the multitude of rampages, bombings, etc), I wonder about those who could be exhibiting destructive tendencies now made apparent by the advent of modern telecommunications. If the creation of the internet was designed with a "web" philosophy, what will this concept catch ? The experience on Wikipedia thus far is showing something of a destructive tendency. What is meant by "speedy deletion" and the constant tendency of those trolling (so-called "reviewers") who want to delete my every last word of article writing. Since I was honored for my writing ability in schools, it cannot by my language or grammar usuage. It appears I posed facts that someone could not digest. But it is up to them to either take things a little at time, or pass it for something else. Robertjlang (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You could read the links you were provided to answer these questions, assuming you actually want to know. - Vianello (Talk) 13:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote is factual data and is grammatically correct. Those are the TWO main criteria for an article. It is not intended for promotion nor advertising (you see no commercial logos, no jingles). A conflict of interest is someone's personal bout with a piece of writing, and they should take their concerns to the editorial page. Keep in mind a very basic teaching given at an early stage of education: FACT vs. OPINION. Facts are verifiable. Opinions can abound forever, and are only how a person feels about something they read. It makes me think they did not learn this very basic teaching. Did we not all come from the same school ? Robertjlang (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to break it down simply. A person writes an article about themselves - this is a contravention of WP:COI. A COI is defined by Wikipedia as a person writing about themselves or a subject with which they are directly personally involved. It has no external references or sources - this is a contravention of WP:BLP's requirement that all biographies of living persons have clearly identified sources for the facts they assert. Lastly, the person who has written this article about themselves uses it to publicize their business efforts, and to opine on communication arts. This - not "commercial logos or jingles" - is self-promotion. If there is anything you still do not understand, please review WP:COI, WP:Notability (specifically the WP:BIO and WP:ORG sub-pages), and WP:BLP. Absolutely none of these are mitigated by the "factuality" of an article, which is a completely separate requirement. If anything remains unclear after you have read these pages, please feel free to ask. - Vianello (Talk) 13:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)