User talk:Macessa

This is Macessa's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Macessa, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Macessa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rlc Ventures

The article Rlc Ventures has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The only thing this article talks about narcissistic self-promotion. No encyclopedic value or notability at all.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 19:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not list award after award in Rlc Ventures

Readers do not need to know about award after award. These add no meaningful content to the article. Include actual content and remove the puffery, or else other editors will delete this article as PR spam. Take a look at WP:PEACOCK and WP:PROMO first. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 19:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for the suggestion. I thought award adds to notability? --Macessa (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, notability does not come from awards. It comes from whether the company is of encyclopedic interest. Show that the company has invested in notable firms and has been around for long enough. So would an economics professor or student looking at the history of venture capital firms would find this article useful, or think that it is just another run of the mill self-promoting business? List the actual investments that the company has made with notable firms. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 20:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will list the investments I found in Google search. --Macessa (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you part of the company's PR department? PR staff often display the classic handicap of not being able to distinguish between advertising and non-advertising. It's more than obvious what the Rlc Ventures article is looking like at the moment. WP:IBA is essential reading. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 20:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not associated with the company or PR person. --Macessa (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am following WP:AGF for now, but many admins will block and delete on sight when they see new articles that look like PR releases and company "about us" pages. If you are not a PR person, then there was absolutely no reason why you needed to rant about the CEO's awards as the first thing you wrote about in the Overview section. The article needs to be neutral, informative, and not misleading. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 20:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought awards are necessary to mention so I listed all awards I found. Macessa (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not necessary. You can list a few selected awards at the bottom, but saying that the company is "award-winning" in the very first sentence is simply asking for the article to be deleted as blatantly promotional PR spam. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide useful encyclopedic content. The notable investments section is starting to let make the article somewhat more useful, but you will need to learn basic writing skills on how not to sound like an advertiser who makes readers want to hit the X button on their browsers.

Now take a look at Gapun, an article about a village in Papua New Guinea that I had created. It talks about what the reader actually needs to know. I did not feel the need to rant about how the village had been featured in "multiple internationally recognized award-winning books" (which is true, but what is the point of saying that?), or insert other nonsense sentences like that. Most villages in Papua New Guinea are not notable, but this one is. Why is that? Not because it has won some awards. Use some basic critical thinking skills, and you will easily see why. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 21:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you very much! Macessa (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Good edits!!! Taiwannumba1 (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Galea moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jacob Galea, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lapablo (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jacob Galea

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sanjida more (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please clean up this page Sanjida more (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Water mist fire suppression moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Water mist fire suppression, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Additionally the draft appears as nothing more than a PR stunt for individual product providers. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello Macessa. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely 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 receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:Macessa. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Macessa|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Galea moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jacob Galea, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lapablo (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 12:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Macessa (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been editing Wikipedia since a long time and promotion is certainly not the purpose. I was asked to create the articles on Rlc Ventures and Jacob Galea and except these 2 articles, I do not have any conflict of interest with any of my other contributions. I do not personally know these subjects. I checked the references before creating these articles. It will be wrong to link my edits with Wikipedia:Spam. I apologies for the inconveniences caused and I regret for the trouble. I had no intention to use Wikipedia for promotion. Macessa (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read and heed WP:COI and WP:SPAM. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Noting recreation of Plumis by Three quest. MER-C 17:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rlc Ventures

Hello, Macessa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rlc Ventures".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Plumis

Hello, Macessa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Plumis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Water mist fire suppression

Hello, Macessa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Water mist fire suppression".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jacob Galea

Hello, Macessa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jacob Galea".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Andrei Polgar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrei Polgar 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Polgar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]