User talk:Hightex

Welcome!

Hello, Hightex!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Grand City Properties

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 Grand City Properties requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand City Properties. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Agent 007 (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advert and COI warnings

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

You appear to have a close connection to a subject about which you have written on Wikipedia that raises concerns about a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Anyone with a conflict of interest must avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your family or colleagues, your organization or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Note that 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. Even if you are not being paid, you are expected to disclose any close connection with the subject of the article, using the connected contributor template.

For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Deb (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deb I saw your message on my talk page yesterday and found it both offensive and unfounded. I'm not a Wikipedia-savvy user, and I can assure you that I am neither involved in COI nor operating as a sockpuppet.

If you’d be kind enough to review the chain of events since March 2025, you'll see how I became involved.

Some background about me: I’m a product manager at a software company, with no connection to Grand City Properties (GCP) — as I previously stated. In my free time, I research and invest in stocks I find interesting. I couldn’t ignore the rally in the German DAX over the past few months and decided to look into interesting companies. Grand City Properties was one of the interesting companies presenting outstanding results during FY2024.

While researching GCP, I came across the deletion discussion for the GCP Wikipedia page and felt it was worth salvaging, simply because it appeared to be notable. One of the admins in the deletion discussion suggested that I consider appealing, which I did.

I took his advice and tried to appeal, unfortunately I got a cold shower from other editors, was blamed for COI and my account was tested (negative) for being a sockpuppet.

Some of those same editors advised me to rewrite the article from scratch. I took that advice seriously: I did my research—both on the company and on Wikipedia guidelines—and drafted an article based on verifiable facts and reliable sources. I also contributed to a few other existing Wikipedia pages to ensure I could edit responsibly and in line with community standards.

All of this was done in my free time, and with genuine goodwill.

I finally uploaded the revised GCP article on Saturday. Just 40 minutes later, @Agent_VII nominated it for speedy deletion, citing vague and, in my view, unjustified reasons—claiming that the new article was similar to the old one and lacked reputable sources. With all due respect, how can such a judgment be made in less than 40 minutes?

As I mentioned, I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia editor. When I looked at your user page, I noticed that you, too, when you started back in 2002 had some hiccups during your first edits. No one is born as an Admin in Wikipedia.

I respectfully ask that you use your experience and sound judgment to assess my article fairly and without prejudice. Can you please help me understand where the article might be interpreted as promotional, non-objective, or lacking in reliable sources? Your guidance would be sincerely appreciated in helping bring this page back to life. Hightex (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is that, in your three months of editing Wikipedia, you have made only 59 edits. The first of these was to complain about the article on Grand City Properties being deleted. It may well be that you have no personal interest in the company but it's unwise for an inexperienced editor to recreate something that's previously been deleted as a result of a discussion. Why did you not submit it for an independent review? I compared your article with the original and, although it's certainly better written, I don't feel that it is less promotional. "Since its inception, the company has pursued a value-add strategy, acquiring underperforming residential real estate assets and improving them through active management and refurbishment" is wording that could have come straight from a company brochure. Deb (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deb,

Firstly, allow me to thank you for taking the time to review the Wikipedia page and for responding to me.

Everything I’ve done since trying to salvage the original article was in line with the guidance I received from administrators — including the most recent suggestion to create a new version of the page, which I followed. I now understand that I should have submitted it for review, especially since it was a recreation of a previously deleted article.

That said, I believe the new version deserves a fairer assessment, as it is not a direct copy of the original, contrary to what @Agent_VII suggested.

I also appreciate your comment regarding the sentence:

“Since its inception, the company has pursued a value-add strategy, acquiring underperforming residential real estate assets and improving them through active management and refurbishment.”

This was intended to describe the company’s business model. It’s a phrasing commonly used by analysts covering the stock — though I understand your point that such language may ultimately trace back to the company’s own materials.

If you believe the subject is notable, I’d be grateful if you could advise me on the next steps to help reinstate the article. Or do you think I’m just “beating a dead horse”?

Many thanks again, Hightex (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's no easy answer. You should probably spend more time studying the guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is a policy that can't be changed or got around. Maybe practise a bit before you start trying to create/recreate articles? Deb (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what made you think that you were an experienced enough user to move an article that had previously been deleted (after a discussion) from draft space to mainspace. Please don't do this again. Deb (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]