User talk:Jpswade

Welcome!

Hello, Jpswade, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 10:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Randles (company) (May 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Randles (company).
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

• Please remember to link to the submission!

• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 09:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Jpswade, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

Prodding articles

Hi, you have nominated several articles for deletion via WP:PROD. Unfortunately if it has been nominated for deletion via WP:AfD it is no longer eligible for deletion via PROD. Jarkeld (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect prod at Belron

You recently prodded Belron with the reason "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:".

I wonder where and how you did this search, as a book search for Belron immediately gives multiple very good sources, e.g. this book spends a whole chapter on Belron (chapter 14), while many other books give it shorter but still significant attention, like here. Google News also has plenty information about Belron, e.g. about the Best of Belron meeting.

Please be more careful before prodding articles. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to take the article to WP:AFD, but I expect that it will get a snow keep there as it is an obviously notable company. Fram (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please improve the article. Telling me is futile. Thanks. --Jpswade (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You wanted it deleted because no significant sources existed. Telling you isn't futile if it prevents further such blatantly incorrect proposals in the future. Whether an article stays or not is not dependent on the current state of the article, but on the potential. Fram (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, put your efforts into improving Wikipedia. Telling me is futile. Thanks. --Jpswade (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

But you don't improve Wikipedia by incorrectly tagging articles for ProD, like you did here and at STOPzilla and FRISK Software International and so on. Apart from the technical reason why Advanced SystemCare could not be ProD'ded, it is also abundantly clear that your reason in the ProD is not correct at all, simply looking at the sourcing already in the article. So why did you prod it, what do you try to achieve? Fram (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking further down in your history, I notice many other contested prod, some of them for clearly notable companies as well. For someone with less than 300 edits here, this is not looking good. When one takes into account that you are trying to make an article for Randles, which is a much smaller copany than many of its competitors you have tried to delete, one can't help but wonder whether you are actually here to improve Wikipedia, or whether you are here to promote one dealer and remove mention of its competitors. You definitely are heading the wrong way with your current editing if you want to remain on Wikipedia though. Fram (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, however I am within the Wikipedia guidelines and I suggest you do the same. It is tempting to justify my actions however, I feel it would be futile for us to engaging in this discussion any further so I wish you good luck with your future contributions and will look forward to seeing your improvements to the articles in question. If you have an issue with one of my edits, please revert and discuss on the talk page of the article. Thanks. --Jpswade (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, constantly prodding articles which don't need deletion at all, with clearly incorrect reasons (you obviously had not tried to find any sources for Belron), is disruptive editing, and may be cause for blocks. If you continue to edit like you are doing now, you'll probably get blocked rather soon. BRD is allright when a problem is restricted to one or two articles, but when a problem is with the actions someone takes across many articles, we don't do BRD but we discuss this on the talk page of the editor involved. I agree that it seems to be futile to try to engage you in a meaningful discussion about these prods. So instead of discussing this any further, let this be a final warning: further blatantly incorrect prods will get you blocked. Fram (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary. Your uncivil behaviour will get you blocked. --Jpswade (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Comodo Antivirus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comodo Antivirus 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/Comodo Antivirus until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Randles (company) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Randles (company), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. 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.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

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) 01:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Automotive industry in the United Kingdom

Your list of dealer groups in Automotive industry in the United Kingdom was getting into less notable companies with red links, so I have taken the opportunity to trim the list down, and to add a little context to your section, and a reference. If you want a long extensive list, why not start a new List Article, perhaps using the Top 200 as a starting point?! Warren (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Warren. Thanks for your message. Each entry is notable enough to warrant their own article, references can be provided. Please do not delete red links as per WP:REDYES. Once the list has matured, it can be split into a new article, you may use the Split section tag template to make this suggestion in the article. Please use the article talk page to discuss any further concerns. Thanks. --Jpswade (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)