User talk:Jmcgnh/Archives/2019/09

Hi Jmcgnh,

I had a page that was created many many years ago by a company I thought was reputable and able to create an informational page for my company in Wikipedia. The page was in place for over 6-7 years when it was determined that the creator broke Wikipedia rules by charging for the page creation. This caught me completely by surprise since the page had been in place for so long and had had a number of small edits by different editors made throughout the years. I had every belief that the page was 100% acceptable to Wikipedia.

In the middle of last year, I was informed that my page and references to it in other places in Wikipedia were being removed. I spent weeks trying to learn Wikipedia rules and subsequently submitted source after source after source, in an effort to move the page from being viewed as 'promotional' to being viewed as 'notable'.

During this process, you were kind enough to interject a few times to help me along my path, but ultimately, due to the 'tainting' of the page by the original creator, it was suggested that I allow it to disappear automatically after 6 months...and then it could be created/re-created without the 'promotional' negativity that was attached to it.

I'm not sure if this is the only remaining page related to my prior page, which is now gone, but hopefully, this will help you remember what this is all about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mic4444?markasread=142526690

Not sure if any of these links help, but they are the original links for the page and the discussions related to it (in case things are still archived in a way for you to view them): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PassionsNetwork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PassionsNetwork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Mic4444

As I was struggling to understand and address the myriad issues that were plaguing my original page, I continued to hit roadblocks due to my inability to modify the page successfully in the eyes of the editors who reviewed it.

On the page I referenced above, you were kind enough to offer to help. "My reading is that COI editors are allowed to edit drafts, but if they simply posted some more up-to-date notability references on the draft talk page, I for one would be willing to give the article a bit of a workover to update it and to decrease the sense of promotionality. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 03:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)"

I am hoping your offer to help is still available since I did allow my company page to be automatically removed so that it would no longer have any connection to the individual who originally created it.

My company was created in 2004 and is one of the largest niche online dating networks. It is still up and running and growing year over year. I would think that in the overwhelmingly competitive online dating market, a company that has survived and grown for 15 years should be an acceptable entry within Wikipedia.

I am 100% not looking for anything promotional in nature, and never was, even when the page was originally created.

It is simply a matter of principle and pride really. There have been massive dating companies that have come and gone since mine was created (i.e. Date.com, True.com, AmericanSingles.com, YahooPersonals.com, Gay.com, etc.).

I am only seeking to have a business listing as one of the first and oldest (and largest) niche online dating networks.

The ins and outs of Wikipedia still tie my brain in knots, so I don't even know what of the original page is still able to be seen by you.

Would you be able to use any of the information previously entered into Wikipedia to create even a very simplistic 'non-promotional' business listing for my company Passions Network Inc, and its domain https://passionsnetwork.com/.

As the only 15+ year old niche dating network online, I have to believe my company deserves to be listed among my peers in the online dating industry.

I hope this is the right place for this type of request and again, any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Mic4444 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Mic4444 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mic4444 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Mic4444, I remember working with you to try to find suitable notability references for Passions Network; I also remember that we were unsuccessful in finding any. I think the closest may have been the Melanie Herschorn article, in that it had something beyond trivial mentions of your company and you - if we had found a couple of articles like that published in what are considered WP:reliable sources (her blog is not), there would have been something we on which we could have written an article.

Asking for a business listing is going to trigger pointers to the page of things Wikipedia is NOT. How old a business is, how well established it is, how successful it is are all (perhaps surprisingly) irrelevant to whether or not the business meets our notability criteria. The sole arbiter of notability is whether there has been independent, in-depth coverage published in reliable sources.

As an alternative, might I suggest that you can write the sort of article you want over on Everipedia? They use much the same software as Wikipedia but have different rules for inclusion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

jmcgnh Thanks for a quick reply. I'm glad you remember the saga. Actually, there were many write-ups with more than a passing reference to my company, but the consistent feedback I got was that the page still 'seemed promotional' and that aside from looking for additional sources, I needed to remove any aspect of it being promotional. One of the editors in the back-and-forth regarding the page said they thought it just needed to be cleaned up and then they thought they could write up a non-promotional version using some of the existing references after it had been automatically deleted. I thought that was you, but now I'm thinking it might have been a diff. editor, as your comment focused on finding new sources. I did my best last year, but ultimately couldn't figure out how to clean it up enough, and finally just gave up, thinking that (as suggested by a number of people) once it was automatically removed and no longer associated with the original author's misbehavior...that there would be enough content for the page to be re-added. I must admit that I am pretty dejected at this point. There was a rather extensive article about my company (only) in June 2019 (but it is in French): https://www.charleston360.life/reseau-passions-plus-260-sites-orientes-sur-10659/ Not sure if that counts. And, to beat a (hopefully not) dead horse, my company has been highlighted in articles in BusinessWeek, Fortune, CNET, Christian Science Monitor, ABC News, TechNewsWorld, HuffingtonPost, The Telegraph UK, Time, Washington Post, CBS News, Chicago Tribune, PC Magazine, The Sydney Morning Herald...with a large number of articles on niche sites like WeVorce, PN/ParaplegiaNews, AllTruckJobs, etc. Not to mention podcast interviews. I hate beating my head against the wall, but it just seems to me that my network has had so many write-ups in so many notable sites/magazines, that it should be able to be included in Wikipedia. Keeping my fingers crossed the new French article is enough of a toehold for you to be able to legitimately authorize entry into Wikipedia. Thanks again, Mic4444 (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Mic4444

Mic4444, the article in French is not what I would consider a notability reference since it is clearly based on talking with you and is overall pretty promotional, so fails the independence standard. We accept references in other languages, though, so it being French is no problem. If I had seen notability references back when we were discussing the draft, I would not have thought it necessary to wait for the taint of bad behavior to decay away. With the right sort of references, one can write a new draft immediately based solely on what those references say. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

jmcgnh I appreciate your responses, despite not being what I hope each time. I feel like I'm boxed in though. My company has always been just me (and some developers). Every article that has ever been written about the company has to have been an interview with me. There is no other way for a journalist to get (real) information regarding the company except to talk with me. The articles that are not specifically and solely about my company are waived away as my company being mentioned among others and therefore not focused on my company enough...while the articles that are specifically and solely about me and my company, where I am involved in providing answers to the journalist's questions, are perceived as promotional. I don't see how any journalist could write an in-depth article about the company without speaking to me. They would just be guessing about anything/everything. Ugh...this is so frustrating. To have created a network over 15 years ago and to have been interviewed countless times for major publications, to have had my company mentioned on television by Conan O'Brien, Tucker Carlson, Ellen Degeneres, Steve Harvey and others, to have relationships, marriages and children all come from the connections in my network. It is so hard to understand how the company, with all of the non-interview references and so many direct interview references, how can the company not be viewed as notable? It seems like I'm the victim of the journalists' style when they interview me directly regarding the company. I never give journalists questions, nor have I ever refused to answer questions (that do not divulge private member information...or some specific financial company information), so all articles specifically about my site are simply a reflection of what is asked of me. I will look at the alternative site you mentioned, but I've never heard of it, so to me, that means it is 'less than' Wikipedia. I just cannot wrap my head around the idea that my 15-year-old company is not notable enough for Wikipedia. It just doesn't make sense to me. I see so many companies that are smaller than my company, and younger than my company in Wikipedia, and many of these will not survive. It is beyond my comprehension how my company is not listed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_online_dating_services How can a 15+ year dating site with millions upon millions of member profiles not be included, while tiny sites like RocknRollDating (which is now a dead site) be listed there? Sorry, I feel like I've veered into venting when I had originally just asked for some help. I'm just confused and frustrated since my network is older than many sites listed, larger than many sites listed and it's still active and growing, while other sites that made it into Wikipedia pale by comparison. If you have any other ideas or suggestions on what is needed for my company to make it into Wikipedia, please let me know...and if it is at all subjective and you think I'm 49% there, but another editor may view me as 51% there, could you reach out to see if someone else might consider adding me? I guarantee you that the RocknRollDating site was not mentioned in BusinessWeek, Forbes, Wired, CNET, NYTimes...or on television or podcasts. It's just crazy. Thanks for putting up with my frustration. I promise I will not continue to reach out to you over and over, but if there is anyone you can pass this over to who might be inclined to view all of the combined information and links/references as putting me over the 51% mark, please let me know if that's an option. Thanks again. Mic4444 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Mic4444

Mic4444, yes, I can see why if feels unfair. I've offered the best solutions I know of. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jmcgnh! Thank you for getting back to me about the article evaluation. I evaluated the Molecular genetics site, but signed up for the R-loop topic because our instructor stated they did not have to be the same topic. We can still change our topic and I may switch to the Molecular genetics page since no one in the class selected that topic, but I want to read up on R-loops first. Again, I really appreciate your help!Johannakhb (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Johannakhb

I see that Ian from WikiEd has responded to you. You can respond on your own talk page, no need to spread the conversation across multiple pages. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to support my candidacy at RfA. I have always enjoyed our time in -help together and have been noodling getting more involved there again so perharps we'll have that chance again soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)