User talk:Mdlusky

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/digital label printing was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —fetch ·comms 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lightning Labels

A tag has been placed on Lightning Labels, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the articles you mentioned are promotional in nature. Fruit of the Loom and Eli Lilly definitely are not - they are two very high profile companies, and those articles have been scrutinized by many editors over time. Same for Serono, as a unit of Siemens. Chagroon, Osram and Topflight do have issues, and I thank you for bringing them to my attention. Wikipedia has millions of articles, so in many cases a faulty article has merely "slipped under the radar" of editors and administrators. Therefore, it is a standard policy that the existence of supposedly similar articles cannot be used as justification for the existence of a particular article. Read this page about what is considered to be promotional. Additionally, read this page about what makes a company notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, though I may not respond quickly as I'll be on vacation for the next several days. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lightning Labels profile

A tag has been placed on Lightning Labels profile requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your e-mail: I am sorry, but my best advice is: give up! It is obvious that you are promoting your company. Please have the honesty, modesty, realism to wait until someone with no COI comes along and writes about the company.

Re messages not getting through. Did you actually review this edit? Did you wonder why you could not see your text in the normal rendered version of the page. With amazing skill you had placed your text in one of the few places where the MediaWiki software would ignore it! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request for respect and consideration

This is in response to: RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In your role as a Wikipedia editor, I have three requests: 1. Per Wikipedia policy, please show respect and consideration. “With amazing skill” is obviously sarcastic and is unbecoming of someone in your position; 2. Because I have a business relationship with the company (it is NOT my company), there is an inherent conflict of interest. However, in the spirit of objectivity, this profile is filled with legitimate, third-party references from such high-profile publications as Inc. Magazine. So, while I assembled the information, it’s the media cited in the article that actually WROTE about the company. That should mitigate, if not eliminate, the conflict of interest bias. According to Wikipedia guidelines, one criterion for acceptance of company profiles is noteworthiness. I have documented repeatedly via credible media reports that this company helped pioneer its field—and in some manner should be considered noteworthy for its accomplishments; 3. Wikipedia encourages contributors to submit articles, even “break all the rules,” and seek input and advice. I respectfully asked for your help. Did you review the article and check out the third-party references and verification? Could you offer some constructive advice instead of just telling me to give up? I utilized a number of standing Wikipedia company profiles as models for what I developed. I ask you to exercise your objectivity and give this another look. If you do not feel you are able or willing to help me further, please advise about steps I can take in an effort to get some form of this profile considered for publication in Wikipedia—in alignment with many others already on the site. Thank you. Mdlusky (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why am I not allowed to be sarcastic about a really crass error? The appropriate route now is to raise the matter at deletion review. Note that the proposed article title should be Lightning Labels. Why on earth did you include "profile" in the title? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for help

I have seen your message on my talk page. I do have some thoughts about the matter, but right now I don't have time to give a full answer. Rather than give a rushed answer, I am just writing to let you know I will try to answer within the next 24 hours or so. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was rather longer than 24 hours, but here I am now. I have looked at both of the incarnations of the article in question, and examined a substantial sample of the numerous links you provided to external web sites. I would not have expressed myself in the same terms as RHaworth used. However, both the reasons given for deletion of the article on the two occasions when it was deleted ("Unambiguous advertising or promotion" and "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject") do seem to be fully borne out by my examination. You refer to "the spirit of objectivity", but nothing about the article looks to me remotely objective: it reads entirely like marketing copy. If you sincerely cannot see that what you wrote reads like promotion then I can only suggest that one or both of the following applies: (1) You are so closely connected to the company that you are unable to stand back far enough to see how it will look from the perspective of an uninvolved observer. (This is one of the reasons why editing with a conflict of interest is discouraged: even if you sincerely intend to edit objectively, it may be difficult or impossible to do so if you are not able to stand back and see the subject from a distance.) And/or (2) you are a professional marketing person, so used to writing and reading promotional copy that the particular forms of expression used in that job have become second nature to you, and you are unconscious of them. You say that the article "is filled with legitimate, third-party references from such high-profile publications as Inc. Magazine". Certainly it was full of links to other web sites. However, the vast majority of these appear to be advertising or promotional in nature. Taking Inc. Magazine, the example which you have chosen to single out, not only does that web site appear from reading it to be a promotional site, but I also read at http://www.incbiznet.com/ "Inc.com is the best place for us to inform, promote, identify, and connect the private companies that we serve...". You say "please advise about steps I can take in an effort to get some form of this profile considered for publication in Wikipedia". Here I think we have a perfectly understandable mistake, which is very common indeed among people new to editing Wikipedia, especially those who come here with a view to promoting something (whether a company, a charity, their garage band, themselves, or anything else). That mistake is asking "how can I make this article suitable for Wikipedia?" without first having asked "is the subject of this article suitable for Wikipedia?" No amount of rewriting of an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. I have searched myself for information on Lightning Labels, as well as looking at the pages you linked. Nothing I have seen suggests that Lightning Labels satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and if not then any time you spend writing and rewriting the article is likely to be wasted, as the article is likely to be deleted again. I would not have expressed myself in the way that RHaworth did, but I do agree with his conclusion, which is that you would be better off giving up. That may seem unfriendly and unhelpful, but in reality it is much more helpful than encouraging you to think that by putting a lot of wasted effort into rewriting the article you can have it kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lightning Labels profile concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lightning Labels profile, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/digital label printing concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/digital label printing, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission digital label printing

Hello Mdlusky. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled digital label printing.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/digital label printing}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Lightning Labels profile

Hello Mdlusky. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Lightning Labels profile.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lightning Labels profile}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]