Jump to content

User talk:Mehak.garg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: ClusterVision (March 19)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CommanderWaterford was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Mehak.garg! 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ClusterVision (March 19)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bennv3771 was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
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.
Bennv3771 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Mehak.garg. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:ClusterVision, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Mehak.garg. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mehak.garg|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 ClusterVision has been deleted
Hello, Mehak.garg. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content encyclopedia.  ClusterVision has been deleted as meeting WP:CSD#G11, as it was seen as unambiguous advocacy/promotion which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch from reliable, third party sources unconnected to the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not an outlet for promotion, advocacy, or advertising.

Information on content and common pitfalls to avoid can be located here and here, however be aware that this is not an exhaustive list. Pages can sometimes avoid these pitfalls and still be seen as an ad copy or unambiguously promotional, particularly if the editor appears to be a paid editor or has some other conflict of interest. Please review these policies, including the FAQ page on organizations to determine if this applies to you.

Common mistakes or beliefs about promotional editing center on the assumption that promotional editing only applies to promotion for commercial gain. Some tags or G11 nominations are met with confusion by creators, particularly if they spend much time reading or creating corporate documents, mission/vision statements, or similar copy for their organization. The frequent exposure to promotional tone may make it difficult to notice non-neutral phrases or styles, as the editor has grown accustomed to seeing it as everyday writing or speech. This can be difficult, but not impossible, to unlearn.

Another common assumption is that the prohibition against promotional editing applies only to businesses or organizations. Anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. and CV/resumé's are by their nature promotional.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and providing verifiable information. That generally means someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject. Please see this page on citing sources. This page has templates you can use in citing your sources. Place the template {{references}} at the bottom of the page, and references cited in the text will appear there. New article creation can be difficult, but the Article Wizard can help you. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. You can also ask for help at the TEAHOUSE

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ClusterVision

[edit]

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 ClusterVision, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. VAXIDICAE💉 16:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ClusterVision (March 25)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Girth Summit 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This needs to be rewritten with a less promotional tone - there is far too much puffery and promotional language. Keep it neutral, factual, and only include content that is directly supported by the sources. I haven't reviewed the sourcing yet to evaluate WHETHER NCORP is met.
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.
GirthSummit (blether) 13:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

[edit]

I see you have tried several times to publish an article about this subject. Please read COI and explain any connection with the subject before proceeding with this draft. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 13:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see that you have continued to work on the draft without addressing my concern that you may have a connection to the subject that you are writing about. Please understand that failing to comply with the requirements outlined at WP:PAID is a breach of the terms of use of this website. If you edit that draft again without addressing this concern, your account may be blocked from editing. Best GirthSummit (blether) 20:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: They've moved it to mainspace at ClusterVision. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:ClusterVision has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:ClusterVision. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClusterVision moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, ClusterVision, is not suitable 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GirthSummit (blether) 14:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for disruptive editing.
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 ~~~~}}.  GirthSummit (blether) 14:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to be clear about the problem here. The article, as you have written it, is too poorly sourced, and far too promotional, to exist in article space. You need sourcing to demonstrate that it would pass the requirements outlined at WP:NCORP, and you need to get rid of the promotional guff like 'revolutionized the high-performance industry', and the impenetrable jargon like 'the founders combined off the rack hardware with customized open-source software using their tailor-made environments'. Before you do any of that, however, you need to address the questions that have been raised about any potential COI you may have with the business - what is your relationship to it?
I've blocked you from article space to prevent further disruption, and until you are willing to engage with other contributors and address these concerns. Best GirthSummit (blether) 14:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: Please suggest areas or cite examples that show that the content for ClusterVision is showing promotional content as I have tried to reduce all the puffy language and have also attched citations, added sources to show that the content is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehak.garg (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehak.garg: You didn't answer the question about your relationship with the compny? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: Thank you for citing the examples. My relationship with the company is that I am their employee. Will this relationship help or allow me to publish the same content? Also I have tried my best to add as many sources as possible to cite the article. 122.173.203.128 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to User talk:Mehak.garg while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many times have you been asked to read COI and PAID? Thank you for finally confirming that you are an employee of the subject. Your editing so far has been in violation of the terms of use of this website.
The next thing you need to do is read through those links carefully, and make the mandatory declarations. Once you have done that, and confirmed that you understand what they say, I will give you more detailed advice on the draft. GirthSummit (blether) 17:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: - Now that the relationship has been declared, shall i still add a template on my talk page? I have read the guidelines for PAID and COI.
I'd suggest a template on your user page, and on the talk page of the draft. Please explain why it was inappropriate of you to move the draft to article space yourself. GirthSummit (blether) 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: -Please suggest how to add the template. Also, I moved the article from the Draft space as I was not sure why it was getting published but still displaying Draft. There is way too much content to read to publish an artcile which is quite confusing.
This is not too much to read - that was the bare minimum for you even to be permitted to edit here. The instructions are in the links I gave you. Next on your reading list is WP:V, WP:RS and NCORP. Once you've read them properly, you should have a better idea of what's wrong with your draft. I'll be prepared to answer questions, but you need to do the basic reading first. GirthSummit (blether) 18:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: - I've added the template on my user talk page and have read the articles. Please guide me for the next steps
Good - thank you. Now, go and read through those link I gave you in my last post. Really read them closely, don't just skim them. Once you've done that, let me know if you still have any questions about why the draft is problematic. I'm not going to spoonfeed you - you are being paid for this, and you are soaking up volunteers resources - we're not here to further you employers' ends. GirthSummit (blether) 18:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: - I've read these pages. Shall I now go ahead and submit the page as a draft under the same Article Name?
Hi Mehak - please sign your talk page posts. There are lots of good reasons to do that (like making it clear who has said what in a discussion post, and when they said it), including the fact that it is your signature that triggers the notification system to ping other uses when you use that 'reply' template. This is covered in more detail at WP:PING.
So, if you have read through those links, you will hopefully understand why your draft is not acceptable in its current form, and so there is no point in resubmitting it for review - it will just be rejected again, wasting more volunteer resource in the process. Here are some of the problems:
  • It is almost entirely unsourced. The only assertion that is accompanied by a citation that verifies the information is In February 2019, ClusterVision was declared insolvent. This is not compliant with our verifiability policy. Every assertion in the article ought to be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source, allowing the reader to check that it is true.
  • With only a single source, there is no indication that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines, which call for substantial coverage in multiple independent, secondary and reliable sources.
  • You have not done anything to address the concerns I already outlined about the language. Phrases like 'revolutionised the market' are promotional. Phrases like 'tailor-made environments' are marketing-style jargon, it's impenetrable to the ordinary reader. Sentences like The company sees a growth for its business in the field of supercomputers with the data explosion happening at an accelerated rate are irrelevant - we don't really care what future the company sees for itself, we care what reliable, independent sources have to say about them.
If you want to get an article about this subject published, you are going to have to go back to the drawing board. Gather as many independent, secondary and reliable sources as you can, and rewrite the article based only on what they say. Don't add anything that you happen to know, limit yourself to what is verifiable. Try your very best to avoid writing anything that might sound like it is praising the company, or trying to persuade the reader that the company is significant: stick to neutral, factual information about them. Once you've done that, you can resubmit it. Best GirthSummit (blether) 09:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now submitted my article again after removing all the promotional language. Also, I have added more verifiable sources to cite the text. Please review it and I hope that there are no issues in the article as I have tried my best to comply with the Wikipedia rules. Mehak.garg (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All you appear to have done is put the article back to the way it originally was, restoring the sections you recently deleted yourself? It is no better than it was then. If you insist on continuing work on this, I suggest you request WP:UNDELETE of the version of ClusterVision that I substantially cleaned up just before it was deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, I have edited the article to reduce all the promotional language and have added many more verifiable sources. It has now been rewritten from a neutral tone because of which I feel that it now has been updated as per the guidelines on the suggested Wikipedia rule pages. Please approve the article or you may still point out if there are issues in the content or sources.Mehak.garg (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just clicked on one of the sources you added at random. If I'm honest, I'm not sure what it was, but it looked for all the world like an e-mail from someone called Andrew Holway at ClusterVision. I'm also seeing Crunchbase, which is deprecated as a source because it is unreliable (see WP:RSP#Crunchbase), I'm seeing press releases which are labelled as such - these are not independent, reliable sources. I've wasted too much time on this already - you need to get rid of any stuff like that, and trim the article to say only what independent, reliable sources say. No press releases! GirthSummit (blether) 18:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I now remove the links you mentioned and then again submit the article, would that be fine? Also some of the links for the press releases that have been used in this article have been fetched from existing already published wikipedia articles, so why are these sources not reliable here? 122.173.197.79 (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::@Girth Summit: ::@Curb Safe Charmer: I have resubmitted the draft for ClusterVision by making changes to it such as- making the content free from any promotions and adding reliable sources that verify the claims made in the text. Please review the draft and provide a feedback if now it is fit to be published. Mehak.garg (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: ::@Curb Safe Charmer: To publish the ClusterVision article with improved content quality, would I need to follow any further steps other than resubmitting the article? Do I need to create a new page and submit it now? Please let me know the review status. Mehak.garg (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mehak.garg. From a very quick skim, I agree that this is an improvement, although there is still some 'marketing speak' in there and it isn't compliant with our manual of Style - for example, section titles should be in regular sentence case (not SHOUTY ALL CAPS). I haven't reviewed the sourcing, but I clicked on one link that seemed to be a chapter of a book by a couple of independent academics, so that's good - if there is more sourcing of that quality, this will probably be accepted. You can now submit it to AfC and it will join the queue to be reviewed. GirthSummit (blether) 16:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit. Thank you for the feedback. I have resubmitted the article and have updated the captions text style. Mehak.garg (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehak.garg, actually, you haven't submitted it for review - you need to click on the blue 'submit the draft for review' button in the box at the top. GirthSummit (blether) 11:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, Thank you for pointing it out. I have resubmitted now. Mehak.garg (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit,Hi, I had submitted the draft for review and haven't yet received any feedback. Could there be any changes that I would need to make and republish the draft? Or we just need to wait for the review? Mehak.garg (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mehak.garg, yes, just wait for a review,it might take a while. GirthSummit (blether) 16:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit Thank you for your response.Mehak.garg (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:ClusterVision has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:ClusterVision. Thanks! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ClusterVision (July 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Some sources are very misleading, they didn’t even mention the subject. Independent reliable sources must be added to demonstrate notability.
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.
TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:ClusterVision

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Mehak.garg. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ClusterVision, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:ClusterVision

[edit]

Hello, Mehak.garg. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "ClusterVision".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mehak.garg&oldid=1064504942"