User talk:ADXDirect

Jacob Arabo

Hello ADXDirect - I noticed your recent additions to the Jacob Arabo page. While the new information is useful (albeit laking any references), I must note that you did remove the few actual references that already existed in the article: hauteliving.com, nymag.com etc. You also have added a lot of hyperbole, fluffery and WP:POV type statements: "top swiss watch brand", "developed a passion" (2x), "finest white diamonds", "creating jewelry is art", "precise design technique", " He continually seeks the rarest and most alluring gemstones in the world, turning to the pure, perfectly colorless Golconda diamonds of India and to some of the most scintillating fancy colored stones from Africa and Brazil. " This marketing prose cannot exist here.

You also removed the well cited factual information on his conviction, replacing it with misleading and minimizing personal claims.

I was originally going to ask you to scale back your editing, but since there is clearly a biased motivation to your additions, I must revert it entirely. I do suggest that you add back the useful bits, such as birthdate and perhaps a brief mention of the watches. But I will insist that you concurrently add reliable citations, and do not remove existing, supported content. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform, and all the spin must be left to his personal website.--Nixie9✉ 23:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

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 once 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/Roberta Naas.
• 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 . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Arabo

Hi - I did see that you made a substantial effort to find references and minimize the marketing puffery. A major improvement from your first edits here. I've asked Bbb23 to reconsider undoing your recent edits, so don't go TILT just yet. He may suggest specific improvements.--Nixie9✉ 03:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

He did reply, saying "salvage what you can" here. I suggest you review your work and make sure it is unimpeachable, and put back as much as you see fit.--Nixie9✉ 13:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nixie9 - thank you very much for all your help with this. We're really trying to improve the style and get these new details successfully uploaded. I got a question, because I don't want us to go back and forth forever: Some sentences (speaking about hyperbole) like "By the time he was 17 years old he was designing his own pieces" are already on the page, with reference. We were trying to keep the tone of new content very neutral, but keeping the old info all up on the page and include them into the new info. Should we not do that? I guess my question is, what are you looking for when you remove info/approve info, to get a better understanding. Thank you so much once again! Also, is this the right way to get in contact with you? ADX

• Yes, I watch for messages here. Personally I feel that your last version was fairly acceptable. You might try to put all of it back (make sure you don't simply "undo" Bbb23) and use your best judgement. Remain neutral and you build credibility.--Nixie9✉ 19:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nixie9 - we uploaded new content for the first 2 categories again, + references. We also updated some old references that expired by now with new ones. I hope this is better now. Thank you for all your help with this! ADX

Hi Nixie9 - seems like all our edits got reversed again. Really a little bit running out of ideas. Any advice? We added a lot of references, replaced old ones that didn't work any longer (which are right now back on the page), but still wasn't approved. ADX

One issue is that you have made it clear that a "we", affiliated with the subject, is making these edits. I also noticed that many of your references seemed to cite press releases, when the sources were actually reputable publications, like Vanity Fair. My suggestion is to make small indisputably well sourced additions, which means no promotional benefits to Arabo. Then if they are undone, you have the recourse to challenge. It is easy for a critic to undo a large edit when there is a perhaps minor fault, vs just one small offending edit. You can force a critic to be specific, and accelerate your learning. Good luck.Nixie9✉ 00:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to point out that the person undoing your edits is an admin and very active editor. You have been smart to not undo them or lose your composure. The door is still open for you to make contributions on this subject, but as a confirmed affiliated party, you need to be very above board, and only use your account.Nixie9✉ 01:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23 - seems like our edits submitted on 5/14/13 were reverted due to unreliably sourced trivia. We don't believe that our source was unreliable as it was from a WatchTime magazine's March/April 2006 issue . The magazine's ISSN is 1531-5290 and their website is watchtime.com. Please let us know what is wrong with our edits in more detail. Thanks!ADXDirect (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)ADXDirect

• Suggestion - Unless you left a note on his Talk page, Bbb23 is unlikely to see your message. You might not really want to. You have succeeded in adding positive spin to the Jacob Arabo article. You have also made it excessively clear that you are related to the subject, or employed by the company. You have not chosen to make edits to any other page out of the millions on Wikipedia. I'm surprised that Bbb23 is still playing along. I suggest that you either become a genuine contributor or step back from the keyboard.--Nixie9✉ 16:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Naas concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Naas, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roberta Naas

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

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 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/Roberta Naas}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)