ReliableShick

Welcome!

Hello, ReliableShick, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Reliable Controls, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Reliable Controls

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Reliable Controls requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.jamesbarclay.com/about/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Reliable Controls

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Reliable Controls requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.reliablecontrols.com/corporate/history/?order=ASC. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, okay so I can't copy stuff I wrote on my website? That is the copyright hit for using your own content? If I take that content and reword it unique to Wikipedia, will that work?ReliableShick (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)ReliableShick

October 2018

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 ~~~~}}.  — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

This is my first Wiki page. Rather than delete, how about educate? The speedy delete first time was for copyright infraction. Still don't know what I copied. So the second try around, I only used stuff I own from the official website. That why I don't link to press releases and such.

This version is being delete for what? Posting the history of the company? That is advertising? Was it the awards being listed? I am more than willing to make changes to comply if you just point out the offending section. The frustrating thing is being new to wikis and being treated like I'm intentionally trying to break rules. I want to be in compliance and list the historical significance of this company. The fact you have BACnet in wikipedia and no mention of Reliable Controls was the reason for creating the Reliable Controls page in the first place because of how Reliable Controls is directly tied into BACnet's development for close to 30 years.

I am not trying to be hostile. I am just frustrated that trying to learn how to make a Wikipage, thinking I'm doing it right, spending days working on it, and then poof. All gone. — ReliableShick (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm satisfied with the discussion below. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are frustrated. It is usually tough for new editors to dive right in to article creation and be successful, because they aren't aware of how things are done here. New editors are more successful when they start editing existing articles, to get a feel for the process and what is being looked for. Regarding copyright violations, we must take copyright issues seriously, as they can put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy if they are allowed to persist. You may not be intentionally trying to break rules, but that doesn't remove the concerns here.

You seem to have a common misconception of what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, and not merely a forum to tell about a business. That is considered promotional here. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with in depth coverage state about a subject, indicating how it is notable as Wikipedia defines it. For businesses, that is at WP:ORG. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what independent sources state. If you work for this business, you need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID. I might suggest that if this company is notable for its involvement with BACnet, you may want to contribute to that article instead of creating a new one- but if you have a COI, you should not do so directly, instead suggesting changes with an edit request. Are there any other subjects you want to edit about? 331dot (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot That kind of feedback really makes things easier to understand. So if I'm getting this properly. I have to use NON Reliable Controls sources to talk about Reliable Controls? "Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what independent sources state." That makes a lot of sense. Reliable Controls has been in the newspaper and covered by media. Would those be good sources to use? What about press releases from Awards Organizations not connected to Reliable Controls? Now that I figured out what I did wrong, I am feeling much better.

I do have a side question. Why are drafts deleted? I can understand Final Published stuff being deleted if they have problems. But aren't Drafts like, well drafts? You know? An rough draft to look at with an editor and make changes before anything gets published? I think that's where the frustration came from.

I really want to thank you for taking the time to explain this out to me. Makes perfect sense. I still want to make an article using this new info. This company has so much historical significance to so many areas of the industry and other companies, yet no wiki. Just seems wrong in the world. That's why I'm making this wiki. I have zero interest in advertising.

Is there any chance I can send you drafts as I work on it? That way I can makes sure I'm not crossing any lines. Got to figure out hot to get unblocked now LOL. Thanks again. — ReliableShick (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)ReliableShick

If a draft is a copyright violation, it must be deleted, as it is still potentially a legal problem for Wikipedia even as a draft or personal sandbox entry. While experimentation is permitted in draft space or your sandbox, those areas are not immune from deletion for copyright violations or promotional editing.

You don't seem to dispute it so I assume you do indeed have a conflict of interest. If you are a paid employee or representative of this company, compliance with WP:PAID is mandatory per Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Regarding creating an article about the company, you would need to (essentially)forget everything you know about it and only write based on what the independent sources state about it. This does not include the company website, press releases, brief mentions, interviews with company staff, or any other primary source. That is usually difficult for people in your position to do.

RHaworth, what would you want to see for an unblock here? 331dot (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• What would I want to see? A description of three non-trivial edits that Reliable to intends to do to subjects totally unrelated to his company. Get real, Dot - is that going to happen?

The account is a classic single-purpose, spam-only account. It stays blocked because it violates user name policy. The user must be told not to create a new account but instead: kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth I am not seeing the username violation(nor was it given as a block reason). 331dot (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

331dot So, do the whole WP:PAID, and forget everything I know about the company? Sounds fair. This is the production path I needed to understand. My misunderstanding was thinking you needed a reliable source for citation and not thinking how writing about yourself (even though that is the largest source) is a major conflict of interest. Thank you for that 331dot. 3rd party verification ONLY.

I'm sure I a write an article without anything from Reliable Controls as a source. There is quite a bit of industry news articles about Reliable Controls over the years that were not in any way connected to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableShick (talk • contribs)

I was stating why generally what you want to do is highly discouraged. Though it is possible, the vast majority of people in your situation cannot do that successfully as they are just too close to the subject. Those few that were able to used Articles for Creation to submit drafts for review by independent editors. I would agree with RHaworth in that you won't be unblocked to just edit about your company, even indirectly, we would need to see some evidence that you would benefit Wikipedia more generally first. Are there any other subjects you want to edit about that don't involve your company? 331dot (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

331dot There are tonnes of articles I would love to work on that are not in any way connected to Reliable Controls. Example: I live on Vancouver Island, and in the Park Royal Area. Both are Wikis I can contribute to real easy. I also come from a background of over 24 years in TV Broadcast industry in 3D Animation, and video production. So there is another area that is of interest. Mechanics, comics, cars, alternative energy, etc are all subjects I am very knowledgeable about and would have a blast contributing to. Why haven't I contributed to these articles before? Consider this. If you are just a casual user of Wikipedia, you are probably not very confident in messing around with source code, and terrified of the effects of editing someone else articles. No one wants to mess up someone else's work. To get in Wikipedia, it takes confidence you know what you are doing. I can see newbies creating their own articles to practice and get good. Then when they feel they are good enough editing their own stuff, then jumping on someone else's articles is not that scary because you know what you are doing. What would be cool for Wikipedia is maybe only allowing newbies to post their own article only after they have contributed to articles enough. Like a rank up system. Go from Rookie with limited abilities, to experienced with full abilities to create/edit articles, and then maybe 2 ranks up for Veteran, and Mods. Maybe this kind of system cold keep newbies from running afoul with the mods without knowing it. Just my suggestion as a newbie for what it's worth.

RHaworth Hello, I don't want to cause problems between you and 331dot. In my defence, you are assuming my actions before I have even done anything. If you need me contributing to articles not related to Reliable Controls, that is perfectly fine. Just need to know that's the proper way of being a member of this community. I started the Reliable Controls article to kind of get some experience in Wikipedia because its a subject I know very well, and I didn't want to go around as a newbie, editing other people's articles while being inexperienced. It took me a while to understand even how this Talk system works. Now that I'm getting the hang of it, it's quite fun. If the proper etiquette is contribute to articles THEN create your own. That's fine with me. Subjects like TV, comics, movies, science, engineering, British Columbia, Canada, etc are all subjects that I wouldn't mind contributing to. What I think your fear is me just creating a Reliable Controls page and contributing nothing else to other people's articles? As for Reliable Controls being noted on Wikipedia, it's already mentioned on the BACnet article where it says "In June 2018, Michael Osborne from Reliable Controls, became chair after serving 3 years as secretary and 3 years as vice chair.". All I'm asking for is a chance to prove myself, I went from knowing nothing about how Wikipedia works, to just learning what is expected of a user in the matter if a few days. What I think is fair is unblocking me, with this knowledge and seeing what i do. If I'm some jerk that does nothing but what you assumed, then feel free to ban me and delete any contributions I have done. That is fair. However, what rubs me the wrong way is ASSUMING what I will do. That is making a character assessment based on no direct communication. Let my actions prove my intent (with this new knowledge) and rule based on that. — ReliableShick (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Try not to be so long winded. OK, so prove me wrong. Get yourself a new account with a name that gives no hint of your connection with Reliable Controls and come back to me when you have done at least 50 edits to articles with subjects totally unrelated to your company. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth Fair enough. 50 edits or more. Question: In the rules they talk about "sock puppetry". If I make another account, am I in violation of that rule? Just don't want to create more problems for myself. Aside from that, it's a deal! ReliableShick (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)ReliableShick

Would it not make more sense to simply unblock on the condition that he not edit about his company whatsoever, and after either a period of time or a certain number of edits(or both), he could then appeal to the AN or COIN to be allowed to use WP:AFC to submit a draft? Technically, what you are asking is sock puppetry. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Dot, I say that ReliableShick violates our user name policy. It is not sock puppetry for them to create a new account with an acceptable name.

Shick, an example of sock puppetry and how it is detected: user:A creates an article which is deleted for being unsuitable. User:B re-creates the article with the same wording. But if you don't do any edits about your company, how can you be detected as a sock? But in fact it may be better to be up-front about it. {{User clean start}} seems an appropriate thing to put on your user page together with a declaration of your previous name. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the username violation? Either way, if they suggest a new one, I can change it. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth Cool. Thanks for clearing up the nauces of sock puppets. I'll just create a new username. Is "ReliableShick2" ok or should I do a different name like "ShickTheSlayer"? Is the name Reliable in my name Conflict of interest? Will I need a new email address for this new user name or can I use my old one? Thanks again RHaworth for the opportunity and the help to get me on the right path. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableShick (talk • contribs)

You can't create a new account until the block is lifted- hence my suggestion above. I also do not know how your current name is a violation. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Shick, learn to sign messages with ~~~~. Neither of you seems to be getting it. I say that any user name with Reliable in it is a spam user name. I assume that you are Shick Singh but since you intend to disclose your CoI, I can see no objection to a user name of ShickTheSlayer. You may use your present email address because no-one can see it. I believe that the block on account creation and on IP address usage both wear off within 48 hours so stop pussy-footing about - go ahead and create a new account if necessary via an IP address you have never used before. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This type of username is explicity allowed by policy. They do not need to change it. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Quite specifically, WP:ISU says, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person. This is precisely what we tell people who wish to identify their business connection (so they won't be accused of concealing a COI). No name change is necessary. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth I clicked on the Join community, and requested the name "ShickTheSlayer". Says my IP is on file or something. They sent me a confirm my email, and now just waiting on approval. That sounds right? ReliableShick (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)ReliableShick

Copyright infringement

I can see that you are a new editor, but you need to know that Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. You must not copy and paste text from sources you find on the web into articles as you did in the article E&N Rail Trail, infringing the copyright of this site. I have removed the infringing text, but the material you copied is subject to copyright, as is almost everything on the web, and when creating or expanding articles, you should completely rewrite the information from the source using your own words. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Thank you for making the corrections. I thought I had reworded it enough but I know how seriously Wikipedia takes copyright issues so I will trust your judgement. The article still works and still useful, so I'm cool with that. Question: If a source is very lean on the facts like: "This project cost $10 Million and should be completed on 2019" How would I reword that so I don't hit copyright? I have read the wiki helps and still seem to get in trouble for it. The only solution I can think of is maybe rather than trying to make it barebones as possible, to maybe expanding upon it. Like "This ongoing projects is expected to be finished in 2019, with a projected cost of $10 Million". What do you think? By the way, thanks again for correcting my article. ReliableShick (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Excellent! Your suggested solution is just right because it gives the information provided by the source while expressing it in an entirely different way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Controls moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Reliable Controls, 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 follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi GSS, I am a little confused with the independent sources? Are major local newspapers not considered reliable verifiable sources? The Times Colonist is the major newspaper for this city. No affiliation with Reliable Controls. https://www.timescolonist.com/

The Better Business Bureau is no good? I was sure that would be a good source. Could you please point me in the right direction? If you could go through the sources, there are only 5, and explain why they are not good, then maybe I can figure out what I did wrong. Thank you, and thank you for moving it to draftspace than delete. ReliableShick (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Better Business Bureau page is a business listing and rest of them provide nothing but a passing mention, which does not meet the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:N so, you need to provide some independent, reliable, in-depth sources to prove the company is notable enough for Wikipedia. Please see WP:NCORP for more. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

GSS Thank you. I'll look at the links you sent and Wiki definitions. I appreciate the help.ReliableShick (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of E&N Rail Trail for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article E&N Rail Trail 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/E&N Rail Trail 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. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reliable Controls (December 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Reliable Controls and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Reliable Controls, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, ReliableShick! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Reliable Controls

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

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 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 13:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)