Barakafrit2

Welcome, this is my talk page.

Reply

Welcome and thanks for the message. If you post an article it will be assessed as it stands. If you don't want that to happen, you should write it as a draft.

Thank you for declaring that you have no conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. Your text's only ref was to the company website, which isn't an independent third-party source.
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. As indicated, you have no proper sources, and from your textthe company appears to have no headquarters, employees, turnover or profits. Endorsing notable performers doesn't make them notable.

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews, such as selling worldwide... many world-known artists,
• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

I'm going to delete it since it appears to name check the company without giving us any real facts or references. Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article, and consider writing as a draft initially Jimfbleak - talk to me?

With regard to COI, that's a typo on my part, there should have been a "no", now added above, my apologies. It's true that Wikipedia is a collaboration, but in this case you are effectively expecting someone else to supply all the facts and references, and effectively write the article for you. It's like writing "Guinness is a beer company in Ireland. Its stout is drunk by Bono and Arlene Foster" and expecting that to be accepted as the basis of an article.

I stand by my claim that an article without facts and references, just supposed endorsements, is both of little value and promotional. However, since you disagree, I've nominated Hughes & Kettner for a deletion discussion rather than just speedy deleting it, which I would otherwise have done. If you used that as a model, I can see why you ran into trouble. Have a look at, eg Key Sounds Label, Phillips' Sound Recording Services or Boosey & Hawkes for better exemplars, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles about companies and products have always been problematic because the vast majority are created by people who work for the company, or have otherwise been paid to create an article here. That's why we have increasingly tightened up the criteria for such articles in terms of the guidelines I posted above, scrutiny of the article, and action against COI editors. If you look at my logs, every day I indefinitely block undeclared paid editors. If you were writing about a fish or a bird you would get much more leeway. ::Also, as I have repeatedly said, the article needs to tell us something about the company. I notice that your new sandboxed version still lacks anything about the company, such as where it's based, number of employees, turnover or profits, and still has no refs. I'll give you a bit of time, but if it remains as "this is what we sell" and "we claim these people use our products", and without proper refs, it's bound to be deleted again either as promotion or because verifiable notability, as defined above, hasn't been established. It may be that you can't find proper sources or real facts about the company, in which case it's doomed on notability grounds anyway.

I notice that that you have translated from ici. Note that each language version of Wikipedia operates independently, and in general the rules on en-wiki are much stricter than for other languages Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a longtime editor on here, and I'm also a musician and a bit of a gear nut, and wrote most of our article on Leslie speaker (which is a good article) so once I started researching Hughes & Kettner I realised who they were and what they did. I've fixed the article up and adding numerous sources from Guitar World and Music Radar amongst others, so hopefully this deletion debate will get closed soon. Part of the problem with gear companies is it's difficult to find individual sources that talk about them as a whole; they generally have to be pulled out of magazine sources covering notable musicians saying how much they like the specific models and why. I've recently done some work on Wurlitzer electronic piano which I've been wanted to do for ages, and which was only possible because a truly brilliant book source came out recently that provided a huge amount of information. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Matriarch (2018-film) moved to draftspace

Notability not demonstrated. Please provide at least two professional reviews in reliable, independent sources (i.e. not crowd-sourced as IMDB). Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Yeah, not the greatest movie, but as it got aired on some big networks, I thought it could have its page.

Question: do the sources need to be english language ones? I found a review in Télérama. You think that it fits? Barakafrit2 (talk) Barakafrit2 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I was currently editing when I got your message. Does that interfere with the move to draftspace? Hope I didn't violate any rule... Barakafrit2 (talk) Barakafrit2 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Just clicked the link and discovered the article on draftspace. And now there are 2 versions: the one I was editing, and the one on draftspace. What shall I do? Barakafrit2 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

ok, I see you (re-)moved it, fine. Thanks for your kind merging of the sources I had added in main page into the draft page, and for letting me know...Barakafrit2 (talk) Barakafrit2 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Barakafrit2! Your additions to Matriarch (2018-film) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Matriarch (film) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Matriarch (film), is not suitable 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. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 06:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Please note that I understand the issue, but just one comment:

For a sparse editor, handling new pages is quite cumbersome, and does not encourage to do so. For example that page has **already** been moved to draftspace by an editor (see above), existed for some time on both, mainspace and draftspace (how is that possible?), and now is moved again in draftspace by another editor... Doesn't make you feel encouraged to contribute! ;-)

Good day Barakafrit2 (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matriarch (film) (December 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 97198 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matriarch (film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

97198 (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Matriarch (film)

Hello, Barakafrit2. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Matriarch".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 06:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)