User talk:Orthodox2014

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emmanuel Lemelson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington and Canonical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed verifications

You've written an impressive biography of Emmanuel Lemelson, packed with impressive details and equally impressive citations. Unfortunately, almost none of your citations actually verify the facts which they cite. For example, when I see a statement that Lemelson's amvona.com site had 300,000 customers and 750,000 unique visitors, and when I see that statement referenced with three different citations, I'd expect at least on of those citations to actually verify any of those facts, but they don't. The same can be said for so many of the citations on this page. Now, admittedly, most of the citations do actually talk about Lemelson in some form or another, they just don't verify the claims of the article. The biggest problem that I see is the claim that Lemelson's report was the deciding factor in the WWE stock price tumble. My reading of the sources indicate that he may have been the one analyst who foresaw this trend, but there is no clear indication that his report was responsible for the stock price fall.

Overall, you appear to have engaged in "reference stuffing", padding the article with multiple references to make it appear impressive. In this case, that appears unnecessary: Lemelson appears to be a fairly impressive character without the reference stuffing. However, I would advise you to review your citations and pare the article down to use only those which actually verify the information at hand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Orthodox2014 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Amvona.com statistics, which appear in the primary, not secondary, sources. I also have corrected and added several other references as it relates to his responsibility for the WWE stock correction. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Orthodox2014, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Orthodox2014! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Emmanuel Lemelson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ceo/ "WWE News: Vince McMahon loses $350 million in one day, could be forced out as CEO," Inquisitr], Retrieved May 22, 2014.</ref><ref>[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/20/when-will-the-
• deal: The red wedding," by Sarah Barry James, SNL Financial, May 19, 2014], Retrieved May 22, 2014.]</ref><ref>[http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2068702-biggest-takeaways-from-wwes-may-19-business-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation overkill

I added Category:Citation overkill to two articles you are working on. Please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill and go back and merge as many of the citations in these articles as practical. Where possible without causing something that needs to be sourced to become unsourced, favor "more reliable" sources over "less reliable" ones ("more" and "less" are relative in this context - I'm assuming all of your sources are reliable, if they are not, get rid of them and the content that they back up). If you can do so without discarding "more reliable" sources and without causing something that needs a source to become unsourced, favor sources that give significant coverage to the topic of the article over those that are used to back up just a few small bits of information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I will do that. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that if a fact is already cited in the body of an article, there is no need to cite it in the lede introduction (unless it is a very grand or implausible claim). In fact I removed all of the inline citations from the lede intro and you have now added them all back again! They were largely links to articles by Lemelson, so have limited importance. Please try and make the article usable and readable, and avoid WP:CITEKILL. Thankyou. Sionk (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Lemelson Capital Management for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lemelson Capital Management 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/Lemelson Capital Management 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. Sionk (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate this edit

I appreciate this edit, Orthodox2014. I still believe that this article should be deleted, and I assume that you still believe otherwise, but I am glad that you are not turning a deaf ear to other editors' concerns--it's all too easy to do so in these situations. This is an improvement, and if the article is kept, so much the better. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lemelson

Hello again. I see that since I edited the two Lemelson articles to clean them up you've started editing a pre-clean-up version of one of them in your sandbox. Please don't overwrite the live article with this version: it's very clear from your actions since creating this account that you have an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding this topic. I've tagged the talk pages of the articles concerned – if you care at all about Wikipedia, why don't you admit your connection? Whether you do or not, I strongly recommend that in future you should confine your actions to requesting changes on the relevant talk pages. If you disagree with this, our dispute resolution page explains the actions you could take.  —SMALLJIM  11:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am going to review your edits and keep any that seem reasonable, but you again have done wholesale removal of biographical content and associated references that only serve to leave the article incomplete and less properly referenced. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you denying that you have a conflict of interest here?  —SMALLJIM  18:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no conflict of interest and my edits have been constructive. Your repeated removal of content and your failed, utterly unjustified deletion nomination of the Lemelson Capital Management page suggests you do. I am happy to work with you on consensus edits to the page, but that does not include just removing notable content and associated media references. Why precisely are you removing it? You offered no explanation to these edits, and they certainly appear destuctive in nature. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)