User talk:MrPMonday

The article Trius Therapeutics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Recently created corperate stub with a single reference, to the company website. Google reveals lots of press releases and forum posts, but nothing in-depth.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trius Therapeutics 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/Trius Therapeutics 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 template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to Lichtiger colitis activity index has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, MrPMonday. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Litehouse Foods, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see a response from you on this. Your editing habits are similar to those of other editors I've seen with conflicts of interest. If you are an owner or employee in this company, or anything else like that, you should disclose it. TornadoLGS (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

No conflict, I have no stake in this whatsoever. What habits are you talking about? Please explain.

What's the line for determining when a company is noteworthy or not, what line do you feel this article crosses? I started seeing mentions of this dressing brand everywhere but I haven't heard of it in my life, so I went down a google rabbit hole and was surprised there was no wikipedia page about it (but there are for other large dressing brands/manufacturers). MrPMonday (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll answer both this question and the one below here. Mainly an editor who is either new or after a long hiatus creates a page about a company or organization and and making other edits focused on it. Though on a second look, it seems you have a fairly extensive editing history up to about 2015, so I apologize there. I had not heard of this company before I saw this article either. For notability there are the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for companies and organizations.

On the speedy deletion, I did not nominate it: another editor placed the tag, but did not notify you as they were supposed to. I had planned on draftifying it after a certain point if more secondary sources weren't added, so you could continue to work on it. Once a speedy deletion tag is placed, it marks the page to be reviewed by an administrator who will decide whether deletion is warranted on those grounds. Quite frankly, I disagree with the decision to speedy delete after the additional sources you added since A7 only applies if there is no indication of notability. If there is doubt about a claim of notability, the procedure should be a deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion. I would recommend going to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and asking the page to be restored as a draft. That way you can continue to work on it and find sources to establish notability, since drafts are subject to less scrutiny than articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks TornadoLGS for the detailed reply. I'll request to have this undeleted, I think it makes sense for this company to have a page from what I've learned about it. There aren't many strong references about the company or its notoriety but I'll work on at least ensuring it reaches the minimum level of support. Open to input from the community on quality of references and tone of the article (again thanks for calling out the company values section in the first draft) MrPMonday (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Litehouse Foods requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Was my response to this inadequate? can you please explain what line(s) you feel I crossed so I know for next time? MrPMonday (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the page to draftspace (Draft:Litehouse Foods). I've also added an WP:Articles for creation template. Don't attempt to self-promote this page back to pagespace; in its current condition it will likely be tagged for deletion again. It's not so much your "crossing a line" as NOT crossing a line, NOT qualifying for acceptance. Wikipedia is not a mere list of food manufacturers. The thresholds are WP:Notability and WP:Verifiablity; with organizations there's an additional Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Any article requires multiple reliable and independent sources which directly detail the subject. Of the sources applied to the draft, four citations are in-house links and four others are solely about one product. Applied sources say what the company wants said about itself. Nothing which could anchor an encyclopedia article. Find some local news coverage about the company. If Litehouse is a major local employer there will likely be something. BusterD (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic thank you, and thanks for the thorough explanation. I'll see what I can find out there for neutral sources. MrPMonday (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)