User talk:Gabegoodremont

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scentematography (January 12)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scentematography.
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 reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Libby norman (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Gabegoodremont, 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!

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Help me with...

"Hi, my article that was worked on by a group of us, was rejected due to that fact that we have trademarked the term, but we only did so because wikipedia said prior that it was not reference anywhere prior in publications. This is now not the case, and to protect ourselves we have trademarked it to avoid any legal issues of us using/performing the service called "Scentematography".

It is to a scent artist what video is to a videographer/videography. This is an industry practiced profession and skill and we have many sources for reference. What must we do to post this article? It was suggested that we try to merge it with digital scent technology, but Scentematography is not exclusive to only digital integration of scent nor does it required electronics all the time. Please re-review or assist us with what we should correct."

Gabegoodremont (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it seems to me that your proposed article for creation on "Scentamatography" was rejected because you are presenting a trademarked neologism as an actual industry practice, where the actual industry practice is historically performed (as far back as the early 1900s) outside of the context of your trademark. That is to say, if John Waters harnessed the power of aroma circa 1982 to tell a story, you can't retroactively call it your made-up "Scentematography" simply because you or your compatriots have a trademark called "Scentematography". That's like me trademarking "Saberography", then writing an article about how George Lucas employed my precious "Saberography" by way of his use of light sabers in Star Wars and its sequels and prequels. Or if I were to trademark Touchography and then claim that the 1977 Kentucky Fried Movie's "Feel-o-Vision" was an example of Touchography. It's a completely absurd proposition. Further, to be considered notable, articles must receive "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic." The article you worked on does not present such coverage, as only three unique web sources are presented, and they appear to be either primary sources or related sources. Now, since it appears that you didn't like the advice that the reviewing editor Libby norman presented, you can ask the reviewer for clarification or reconsideration via that user's talk page, but posting a general help request because you didn't like the outcome of your AfC rejection is not likely to sway public opinion. Good luck! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Scentematography

Hello Gabegoodremont. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Scentematography".

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 that Articles for Creation is not for 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/Scentematography}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]