User talk:Ceferlyj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Please do not add links to the same retailer to many different articles. Thank you! skip (t / c) 09:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moosejaw.com

Why can Backcountry.com keep it's page but Moosejaw.com can't? Makes zero sense to me. Don't you think you should be fair to Backcountry.com's competitors. Why do they get a free pass to shamelessly advertise but we can't?

And I just saw that REI.com has a page also. Why can REI.com have a page but Moosejaw.com can't? This is SO FRUSTRATING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceferlyj (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 November 2006

Have you tried creating the page? If not, then feel free to create a page for moosejaw.com. If it was AFD'd, then you might want to try deletion review. Just remember, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. If it is one of the top 50 for outdoor gear retail, then it should be notable. bibliomaniac15 05:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've looked briefly at your contributions to see where you've been on the Wiki and hopefully understand your frustration. Is this what you're referring to? The Criteria for Speedy Deletion criterion G11 prohibits blatant advertising. I can't see the article that was deleted, so I can only guess that it met the deletion criteria. There is a similar provision for links like this one you added to the article on Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in the external links guideline, which basically says that links to sites which exist primarily to sell a product should be avoided (see Links normally to be avoided #3). As far as other articles being included, our encyclopedia is not perfect but it is a work in progress; there are articles around that should be fixed, deleted, or rewritten. BigNate37(T) 06:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Was there anything more specific I can take a stab at? Just leave a note here and I'll see what I can do, no need to replace the helpme tag. Or, if you wish, you can reply at my talk page though I'll see your comments here. I'm going to remove the {{helpme}} template, if you would like a different opinion on the matter feel free to put it back and I'll let someone else answer it. BigNate37(T) 06:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WHERE DID THE PAGE I ALREADY SPENT THE TIME CREATING GO? SHOULD I JUST RECREATE IT? IT WAS NEARLY IDENTICAL IN TERMS OF STRUCTURE AS BACKCOUNTRY.COM WHICH IS WHY I'M SO CONFUSED. PLEASE JUST TELL ME WHAT TO DO SO MOOSEJAW.COM CAN HAVE A PAGE JUST LIKE BACKCOUNTRY.COM AND REI.COM. SORRY IF I'M DUMB BUT I JUST DON'T GET IT. PLEASE PLEASE HELP!!!

For starters, all caps will not get you anywhere. It might even put off editors from helping you. Second, please sign your comments using four tildess (~~~~). Now, if you want to get that article back, deletion review is your best bet. There are instructions there. Also, please stop adding links to the external links section of Backcountry.com until you familiarise yourself with the external links guidelines. BigNate37(T) 04:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the all caps. I just did it because it's hard to follow all this text and I was trying to show where your text started and mine ends. I can see how that would be misinterpreted by editors so I apologize. Anyway, I just recreated the Moosejaw.com page per your advice. It was already marked for speedy deletion so I added the hangon text defending why I think it's fair for Moosejaw.com to have a page just like REI.com and Backcountry.com. I guess I don't really get the external links section but I won't do any more external links until I figure out why some links are ok and others aren't. Please help me out. I really want to make this work. If you still won't allow it, so be it and I'll move on. I would hope that if you don't allow my page that you would at least treat my competition the same way. Thank you. Ceferlyj 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Jeffrey Wolfe, Owner, Moosejaw.com

Please read the speedy-deletion policy that is being quoted as the reason for this deletion: it is CSD A7. I'll copy its text here for you: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." Now, the best way to save your article is to find a claim to notability for your company, find a source (i.e. not your website, maybe independent top-50 listings, etc.), and add it to the article. BigNate37(T) 04:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you just answer one question. Why do REI.com and Backcountry.com have pages? They clearly don't do anything differently than I'm doing. All that said, I will change my page to be about Nonsensical Marketing and make Moosejaw.com an example rather than the title of the page. If you are not the person I talk to about REI.com and Backcountry.com, please let me know who I can speak to. I'm all about equal treatment and that's why Wikipedia rocks but so far I'm not feeling it. Ceferlyj 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Jeffrey Wolfe, Owner, Moosejaw.com

Well, I'm afraid to say that Wikipedia is not about equal treatment. It's not perfect, and there are some bad articles. This does not mean we want more. Please not that I'm not saying any of the articles you mention are necessarily bad, but I'm explaining how Wikipedia works in general to be sure there is no misunderstanding.
Why do R.E.I. and Backcountry.com have articles?
Well, REI actually has a reasonably well-written article, with information in it that can be verified. Numbers and a link to verify them, as well as a tone that is encyclopedic in nature go a long way. In contrast, your wording does read like an advertisment, and a lot of the statements you make cannot be verified and have no encyclopedic worth. There is a lot of talk about what "Moosejaw.com offers", which sounds like advertising whereas the REI article describes the business in a more subjective tone. Now, as far as Backcountry.com, I've made comments regarding the article on its talk page (Talk:Backcountry.com). BigNate37(T) 04:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added a page called Nonsensical Marketing and I changed up the Moosejaw.com page. I still want to do more so that Nonsensical Marketing becomes the main section and Moosejaw.com becomes a company that is notable partly because it is recognized as a top 50 website by multiple sources but also because it is the leader in nonsensical marketing. This is a new term and that's why it's perfect for Wikipedia. What do you think? Ceferlyj 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Jeffrey Wolfe, Owner, Moosejaw.com

Well, new terms aren't always fit for Wikipedia. They need to be verifiable, and a lot are created without sources to verify them and those get removed as neologisms. BigNate37(T) 04:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there - I figured out how to tie the actual PDFs of the articles to my posting. I think you'll find this a lot more legitimate. Let me know what you think. Please let me know if I'm going in the right direction so I can keep going at this. Thanks. Ceferlyj 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Jeffrey Wolfe, Owner, Moosejaw.com

[edit] Nonsensical Marketing

Can you review the page I just submitted called Nonsensical Marketing. My goal is to promote this concept and grow it. And yes, I want to mention my company as the first case study since we have been recognized as a leader in this type of marketing. Just let me know what I have to do to make it work. Thanks for all your help. Your response time is amazing! I thought I was the only person that did this stuff on a Friday night. My girlfriend will probably make me stop soon so we can watch a movie so hopefully I hear some good news back from you! Ceferlyj 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Jeffrey Wolfe, Owner, Moosejaw.com

Well, if your company has been recognised as a leader in this type of marketing, a good reference to cite would be the most important thing to have. After that, it's just writing the stub with some neutrality, and others can help with that if you get it going. BigNate37(T) 04:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I took a look at the article, and it does look very similar to a recent version of the Moosejaw.com article; in case it gets marked for speedy deletion again, may I suggest you save a copy of the wikimarkup so you don't lose your work? It could save you a lot of unnecessary frustration. BigNate37(T) 04:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a bunch of articles from the publications like New York Times and Outside Magazine and Internet Retailer. How do I reference them though so it's viewed as legit and verifiables? Do I post them as separate pages? Just a little confused. So sorry for all the questions.

Just saw that you or someone marked it "Spam. Neologism. Non-notable marketing technique." I'm not sure why you think it's non-notable. Does something have to have already been thought of to be notable? What about new, unique ideas? It's not like I'm saying this is just an idea in a vacuum. My company uses it and uses it successfully as verified by our financials and by media publications.

Well, don't worry about that tag for today. No, it wasn't me, you can check the history for the article to see who does what and when. Just work on improving the article, that tag won't get it deleted for a few days. You can even remove it yourself, but I recommend improving the article before removing it. BigNate37(T) 05:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources has some good advise on how to cite sources. The first and most imporant thing is to get the sources mentioned in the article, format them after that so other editors can see the material is sourced and they won't remove content while you're working on the sources. BigNate37(T) 05:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have fun

Well I'm logging out. Take your time, read through those links I gave you, and don't worry: if someone deletes your work and you found reliable sources for claims of notability, you'll have a good case for having it restored. Just keep your work backed up and have patience, a lot of editors are quick to have new pages deleted if they're not written well from the get-go. BigNate37(T) 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)