User talk:Bdgls

Welcome!

Hello, Bdgls, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ourinternet, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ourinternet

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 Ourinternet, 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, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

(I don't know for certain it is from you, but I think it is a reasonable guess.)

Hello, Bdgls. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added SPhilbrickT 12:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feedback on User:Bdgls/Ourinternet

There are several examples of wording that are problematic:

• "The company is one of the leading providers" You can't say this without adequate sourcing, and even if you can find adequate sourcing, many editors (including myself) don't think it is appropriate wording. It is what the marketing department says, not an encyclopedia.
• "packed with advanced features" In a word, no. Not acceptable.
• "Next step forward" See above
• "carving out a new niche" See above
• "Our Internet cloud servers are a good alternative" Not acceptable with sourcing, and even then, not advisable.
• "without investing a fortune" This is advertising not encyclopedia phrasing --SPhilbrickT 12:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Will try to fix that leaving only facts and related sourcing.

Bdgls (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed all your remarks. Can you please take a look and let me know whether the page looks better now and can be restored?

Bdgls (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly.

My biggest remaining concern is weakness regarding reliable sources. Please read the link but the key sentence is:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

You have included five references, but some are to the subjects site. I'm not familiar with Parallels or Web Hosting Stuff, but neither of them appear to qualify. --SPhilbrickT 15:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What can be actually reliable in this world... Any case, Web Hosting Stuff is considered to be an authority and reliable source with more than 10,000 of reviews on various web hosting providers and services. Parallels is a multi-national corporation with offices in North America, Europe and Asia. They considered to be one of the leaders in server/desktop virtualization technologies (for example CNet review http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-10451102-263.html). That's why I considered them to be reliable sources. I'm going to add a few more sources in future while updating the content.

Bdgls (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey SPhilbrick, just wondering whether you saw my last message. Not sure whether a user talk section has proper notifications. Hope on your feedback.

Bdgls (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Got your message, will look now.--SPhilbrickT 11:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

First, you wondered about "whether a user talk section has proper notifications" Yes and no. Everyone has a WP:WATCHLIST, which does indicate when someone edits a page on the list. Your talk page is on my watchlist, so had I been monitoring my watchlist, I should have seen it. However, I have 4800 pages on my watchlist, so that method of notification is not working for me. I need to work out something, but that's really my fault not yours. heads up many editors (who manage to monitor their watchlist regularly) do not like Talkback messages. However, I'm not one of them, so feel free to send me a talkback if I'm not responding. Or, as you did, post on my talk page - I do get a notification of that.--SPhilbrickT 11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Web Hosting Stuff

Sorry, but you still have a ways to go. There are debates on Wikipedia about how many sources (qualifying as a reliable source) are needed, and in rare instances, one is enough, but it has to be quite good. IMO opinion web hosting stuff does not meet the requirements. They host reviews, but anyone could write a review. I tried, and it looks like I could write one. If they prohibit the company itself from writing a review about themselves, I didn't see it. The review on OurInternet.us was clearly written by someone close to the company.

I grant that I didn't look closely, and I may have misunderstood the site. If you would like another opinion, the formal way to determine whether a source qualifies as a reliable source is to ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I checked the archives, and did not see that it has been discussed in the past. --SPhilbrickT 11:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick - thanks for your feedback and information. Regarding sources - in the web hosting field there is a type of review sites that are making reviews using a similar template structure. But all of them are pre-moderated. What about another OurInternet review http://www.bestresellerwebhost.com/articles19.html. Does it qualify?

Bdgls (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)