User talk:Birdmanoftech

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brainchip (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Brainchip 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: can you explain what parts of it sound like an advertisement? Birdmanoftech (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Birdmanoftech! Having an article draft 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! Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Brainchip has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Brainchip. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Brainchip has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Brainchip. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: I have removed the line "the world's first commercially available neuromorphic processor." I don't understand your comments about the patents Birdmanoftech (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents. They confer zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: I have removed the patents, is it now acceptable? Birdmanoftech (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Brainchip has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Brainchip. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brainchip has been accepted

Brainchip, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrainChip

I would like to assume good faith after you stated you had no COI (at the WikiProject Companies noticeboard). However, your edits give a huge red flag that you are somehow connected to this company. Regardless of you being paid directly or not, you may have a conflict which is defined by WP:PAID and/or WP:COI. Also, your last edit to that page was unsourced which is not something that can be done. Please ensure that a reliable sources is used anytime there is an addition. CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you seem to have a conflict of interest against me, the edits I make, and the BrainChip page; you exhibit a passion for the belief that I am somehow connected with this company, I may assume there is nothing I can do to convince you of the truth, I am not. I will tell you I am a student in Nebraska with an interest in general computer science. I would ask that in the future before you accuse me again, please run your complaints through another editor. Birdmanoftech (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and having a look at your talk page it looks like this in not a unique occurrence, you seem to have a compulsion towards accusing people of having connections with companies. Birdmanoftech (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Birdmanoftech (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you think I have a conflict, please take it up at the appropriate noticeboard. I simply told you that while trying to assume good faith, your edits give the impression of a COI. Please tell me where I accused you of such. Now, your accusations absolutely cross the line of WP:AGF. I call out what appears to be COI based on my experience here, not just pulling things out of my ass. So again, go to the appropriate noticeboard if you feel I am picking on people. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With that aside, you didn't address the issue of adding content that is not referenced. Just want to make sure you area aware that adding information requires a source. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a huge red flag here. I removed some WP:NPOV material before I accepted the draft but that's not unusual to see coming from a new editor. Please don't WP:BITE. ~Kvng (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not going to BITE as the same happened to me when I first came here. I will however not be accused by someone of "hav[ing] a compulsion towards accusing people of having connections with companies" without evidence. Especially when that person has given the impression (not just to me but to others as well) as having a conflict of interest. But as stated, they are welcome to go to ANI if they feel I am biting or harassing. I am always open for admonishment if in the wrong. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 understand that WP:BITE applies specifically to newcomers. Birdmanoftech has been an editor for two months. You have been here for almost 10 years. It is not WP:AGF to start a screed with I would like to assume good faith.... It is not WP:CIVIL to bully then take the position that it is only bad behavior if we can get consensus from a dysfunctional noticeboard to label it as such. Admonishment is not a goal here. I'm hoping for some self awareness and an appreciation that the way you say things (especially to newcomers) matters and then an improvement in behavior. That's my dreamworld at least. ~Kvng (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We work in an environment that requires cooperation from all editors. So, 10 years or not, I am subject to admonishment like all other editors. If you feel I am bullying, then please do what you feel necessary. I will understand and harbor no hard feelings. I will say I am a little puzzled at the accusation of bullying though, especially from an experienced user who understands that AGF is not a WP:PACT. Bullying would be undoing the edits that this user has made (including the promotional edits made today) which I have not. So yes, while a dreamworld would be great (and I would love to share in that dream with you), I am hoping for some self awareness on your end as well.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "promotional edits made today", I made an effort write these as cut and dry as possible, I felt it was important mention these announcements as the global and market response to these announcements was substantial and made headlines. If you have constructive advice on how to integrate this information in a non-promotional way, I would appreciate it. Birdmanoftech (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Michael Abbey moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Mount Michael Abbey. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@(Neigh at me)

Hi. Some of this information is from a yet unpublished book manuscript a friend of mine wrote "The History of Mount Michael Abbey". I'm not sure how to site this information as it has yet to be finished/published. I can say that his book is a credible source I'm just not sure how to reference it. any advice you could give would be great.

Thanks.

- Birdmanoftech (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses

I have added some other sources that verify the information from his manuscript, if they are satisfactory. ~ Birdmanoftech (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use unpublished books to source articles. It limits verification of the information you're putting in the article/draft too much. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses

Do the other sources I have included provide enough verification of the information on the page? I think I found sources that touch on just about everything I put on the page.

~ Birdmanoftech (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sources are one newspaper and affiliated sources, so a reviewer might have issues with that. However, I don't review drafts on demand. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what I should be looking for source wise beyond this, I have articles from the only significant newspaper in Omaha and if I can't use information from other Benedictine sources because they are affiliated what should I use? I could use some guidance here.

~ Birdmanoftech (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]