User talk:Sredmore


 * }

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lexalytics.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Lexalytics.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Sredmore, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Sredmore/Lexalytics. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lexalytics
Hi S Redmore, and thank you for your contributions. As you might imagine Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and an article like yours raises concerns, with or without declaration of your interests (but thanks for being honest about it).

Having said that, a company like Lexalytics is probably sufficiently notable to warrant an article in Wikipedia. We would, however, be interested in a more "rounded" coverage: size and annual turnover, company history, and such things—in other words, a little less on your products, and a little more about what makes Lexalytics worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, all supported by independent sources.

Feel free to contact me should you have any questions. --Pgallert (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Maybe you have already seen it, we have a FAQ page for businesses: FAQ/Organizations --Pgallert (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, super cool - I've sorta been waiting (admittedly with a tad bit of dread :) ) for a note like this. I read the org FAQ before I did my article, and did a bunch of other reading of other posts.  What I did was modeled on one of our direct competitors and their page Attensity, which had been up for a while, and had nothing really on the talk page to indicate that there was anything amiss about it.  In looking at some of the other companies in the space Sysomos, AeroText seemed more advertising-y that I was comfortable with. Please note that I'm not complaining or being defensive (or saying "well if it's ok for them!!!" :) ), just demonstrating that I did really try to do my homework first.

I will aggregate as much as I can on the "more well rounded" side. I started down this path because Lexalytics already mentioned in Text_analytics with a red link. Moreover, when clicked, it was the amusing "do you mean 'Lunatics'". I will look harder for more rounded coverage - please do note that not all of the references I put in are positive :). I actually felt like doing this would be a good intro into working with the markup language and getting a feel for the society before I went on and worked on other articles.  I have an interest in improving the the natural language processing related areas, as I think they could use a bunch of work, but wanted to get my feet underneath me with a low hanging fruit, as it were.  I have been spending a bunch of time reading through the various how-to's and following threads where things went wrong (edit wars) and such before delving into other articles.  Thank you again so much for your thoughtful critique. Sredmore (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again, actually, for a first article by a new editor the quality is quite amazing; we do not get that every day. Great to hear that we will keep you as an editor after your PR work is done ;) You are absolutely right, there are far worse articles in Wikipedia than yours. If you spot them, and if you think they go over the top advertising, don't hesitate to leave a note like advert on top of the article, or delete offending prose. Because the truth is, not all new page patrollers invest the necessary time and effort, and once an article has been marked as "patrolled" it is pure chance if someone catches policy violations or not. Again, if you need any assistance, just post a question on my talk page. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I'm traveling to Burning Man next week, on my return I intend to dive in and fix the issues you raise as well as branch out into other articles.  I'm sure I will have questions and will ping you on your talk page.  Thanks again! Sredmore (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lexalytics.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Lexalytics.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Lexalytics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lexalytics 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/Lexalytics 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)