User talk:Bellerophon
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 month by a bot. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
 | If you are here to ask why I declined your submission at articles for creation, please read this page of frequently asked questions first. |
|
GOCE newsletter
Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors
  Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today. |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 11:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Criteria for deletion
I changed my minds! Please, cancel the deletion at Bulgy the Double Decker Bus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.170.173 (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Re: AfC Edward Thomas William Galpin
Hello,
In reviewing my article for creation 'Edward Thomas William Galpin, OBE' you stated that some of the references do not seem to refer to the subject matter, such as Mr. T.G. Moore is appointed a director’ (1962), The Evening News, Saturday 28th July 1962'. The article about Mr. T.G. Moore also discusses the appointment of a new General Manager, Edward Galpin and contains some of the facts cited in this article. Unfortunately I don't know what I can do about this - would the articles need to be scanned to prove they relate to the subject?
Regarding NPOV, I will re-write some things and resubmit.
Judygarland11 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, in regard to the references, what I ment was, that footnote number 5 supports some text that talks about his military service, yet the reference is to a newspaper story about someone being made a director; the two don't seem to support each other—You have perhaps just placed the wrong footnote in the wrong place? As for NPOV, yes, it's not bad (believe me I do see many terrible submissions) but a little NPOV tidy up wouldn't do it any harm. If you need any more help just ask. Pol430 talk to me 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The article refers to his military background when discussing his appointment to General Manager, but I have changed the reference to a different article that uses the same facts, just so it's clearer. Regarding NPOV, is there anything in particular you think I should change? Thanks!
Judygarland11 (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, this edit fixed most of my NPOV concerns. From the refs I get the impression he was commonly known as 'Ted Galpin' is that correct? Pol430 talk to me 12:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Great, do you think it's ok to resubmit now or anything else you would suggest? He was known informally as Ted, yes. I'm not sure I would list him as that though?
Judygarland11 (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have created the article now. As far as names go, its Wikipedia policy to create the article in the common name of a person not their formal style. According to the refs he was known as Ted Galpin. See WP:UCN. Pol430 talk to me 12:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you!
Judygarland11 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Re:Your review to my Article on Rommana Integrated Agile ALM
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for reviewing my article. in your review, you say "We're sorry, but we cannot accept insourced articles, or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please cite reliable, third-party sources in the article. Third-party sources are needed so the information can be verified, and so the notability of the topic can be established."
From: Magdyshanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdyshanna (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Your review to my Article on Rommana Integrated Agile ALM
I am sure you can see that the 3 of the external references listed are published by "RELIABLE THIRD PART REFERENCE". The fourth reference is the simply the web site that provides more details about the subject. If you want us to remove it, that is fine. Also Reference number 4 under "References" is published by, SD Times, a very reputable third part source. If you want us to remove the other 3 references, we can do that. There are hundreds of articles out there on Wikipedia that that does not have one single reference from external verifiable source; only the company web site. See the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuildMaster for example. I can find too many of these for you if you want. I am just following the same criteria that our competitor followed and then article was accepted. I certainly do not want our article to be treated differently or evaluated based on a different criteria. If our article is not accepted, then all these articles need to be deleted. Please advise what you are looking for instead of copying general text from Wikipedia pages. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdyshanna (talk • contribs) 05:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- The sources you have given simply present largely self published information from 'Dr. Magdy Hanna'. Thank you for pointing out the buildmaster article. I have tagged the article's referencing as dubious and I will attempt to find some better sources for it. If I can't find any sources for it, it will be recommended for deletion. Also, I notice that you seem to have a conflict of interest in the article and your username may be in contravention of the username policy. Pol430 talk to me 11:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
---
Hello, not sure if it's OK to comment under this section... but I want to stress what Magdyshanna said: there are hundreds of articles out there on Wikipedia that that does not have one single reference from external verifiable source; only the company web. Being very familiar with the niche of application release automation, Rommana Integrated Agile ALM is indeed a notable platform in the space and should be included along with everything else. Or, delete everything including the highly-specific articles within software engineering, as none of them are notable outside of the niche and you can't really have a discussion on this topic without including the industry-leading projects, since that's who's driving everything anyway.Atpapa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC).
- Let's get one thing straight: I'm not the big bad wolf who is here to trash all your attempts at writing an article. I am a volunteer who tries to ensure that they review all articles on their individual merits, and ensure that they comply with Wikipedia policy and guidance. If I don't do that job properly, it will ultimately be to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I don't disagree that there are many articles that are on wikipedia that should not be there, but there it little I personally can achieve in fixing that problem. Presently there are 62,163,782 pages on wikipedia, 6,932,444 of which are articles. Pol430 talk to me 16:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I understand, but I'm just pointing you to the generally "hairiness" of the subtopics within software engineering. Generally speaking, software engineering topics don't seem to follow the same rules as the rest of Wikipedia, largely because of the contributor/editor bias: many are software developers themself, and therefore think everything in software engineering is generally notable. As you said, there aren't enough volunteers avaiable to clean up the mess. However, by trying to strictly following the guidlines in this niche, you're opening the door to an even bigger problem. While your vote for notability may not be swayed by a couple thouand dollars, other volunteers' will be.
- I'm only suggesting that you consider following the de facto standards within the software engineering niche, which are a little looser than the rest of Wikipedia, as you may have noticed by now. Maybe one day all the articles can be moved to another wiki which would have much less strict notability guidelines.Atpapa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC).
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Tenzing-Hillary Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sherpa (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) 10:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
New Wiki contributor looking for some advice
Hi. Thank you for looking at my opening attempts to get going on Wiki. I have done some minor editing before, but Jamie Rae is my first attempt at a biography. Please let me know what I need to do to make this more authoritative for inclusion. There are other sources available. I think Jamie Rae is an interesting person (I know him personally) to be featured as a Scottish business figure. I think Wiki is rather lacking in serious business people. His story has attracted numerous media articles. Thank you.82.41.44.201 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Harry Sloan from Edinburgh82.41.44.201 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, your submission on Jamie Rae has the potential to be included in the encyclopedia. I declined it because he is not discussed in sufficient detail in reliable third party sources. He only appears to be notable for being convicted of fraud and for his philanthropy—for which there are no references. Because of this he does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for BLPs. I have sent a welcome message to your talk page to assist you in improving your submission. Pol430 talk to me 12:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
RE: BuildMaster AfD
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, thank you for reviewing my article on BuildMaster. I understand your concerns about notability, but if BuildMaster is not considered notable, then most of the niche software platforms on Wikipedia should also be deleted as not notable, too. Examples can be found linked to these pages:
- Comparison of issue-tracking systems
- Comparison of revision control software
- Comparison of project management software
If you review those articles, you'll see that virtually all are single-sourced from the project's own website. For commercial products, articles will reference paid placement, press releases, and/or lists ("the top ten tools of ..."), which aren't considered reliable sources under most interpretations of notability. Are those articles acceptable?
Like most of the software platforms/tool, BuildMaster is most certainly notable within its own niche (some have argued that the niche itself is non-notable and should be merged into single paragraphs on the software engineering page), but finding reliable, non-project sources is difficult. A vague standard of "it feels like people don't talk about it as much as other tools" isn't exactly fair.
That being said, which niche tool articles do you find accetable? How can BuildMaster be improved? Atpapa (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, in order to make BuildMaster notable it requires some significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used, but not at the expense of secondary sources. Simply because I have recommended the article for deletion does not mean it will be deleted; the Wikipedia community will now discuss the article and a consensus will be formed on weather it should be kept or deleted. I have checked the links you have pointed me to, and in a dip sample of about 6 articles, I found most had at least one good piece of coverage in secondary sources. Some of those articles did indeed rely only on primary sources, and I found a few that were tagged as 'not meeting the general notability guideline'; as to why those articles are on Wikipedia, I can only say that sometimes wikipedia's quality control mechanisms are not what they should be.
- In the case of BuildMaster I do not feel that the subject meets the notability guidelines and I cannot find any sources that would correct that problem, that is why I nominated it for deletion. In regard to: "A vague standard of "it feels like people don't talk about it as much as other tools" isn't exactly fair." It is not a vague standard, it is policy, and I do not believe the standard has been met—other editors may disagree with me. As for those other similar articles that may not be notable, I have no intention of going on a mass review/deletion tagging exercise as this would over-burden and already over-burdened area of Wikipedia (and I don't have the time). The fact of the matter is, that Wikipedia is growing at a faster rate than the small group of volunteers who try to maintain it, can keep up with; and it has been doing for a number of years now. I do not believe that is exactly fair either, but it is not an easy problem to solve. Pol430 talk to me 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think Wikipedia should be the portal for niche software engineering topics, as it's far too small for reliable sources. But it is, and articles like BuildMaster document important aspects of the discipline. The only secondary sources will be articles are found in trade journals/sites written by people who work for the project. Not exactly notable or non-biased. So, if you propose to arbitrarily delete one article but ignore others in the space (like Go (software, which references only press releases and/or paid placements), then you're creating a much larger problem than quality control. How much will it cost to get an editor to vote to keep one non-notable article? What about voting to delete another non-notable article?
- I think this speaks to the larger problem of considering vendor-driven disciplines like Build automation notable (as opposed to living in a completely separate wiki), but if editors arbitrarily delete one vendor's article for being non-notable, you'll start finding much bigger problems than quality control.Atpapa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC).
- It will not be arbitrarily deleted; if it is deleted at all, it will be the result of consensus. You appear to have a conflict of interest in the article. Pol430 talk to me 17:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
To: Pol 430 ( I wish we have a real name to use here) As I read the debate between you and other authors, I am now convinced that the lack of knowledge of the subject matter is causing editors like you to make uninformed and harmful comments about our article. I am not sure exactly how someone can determine if an article is notable or not, while he or she knows nothing about the subject being covered. It is frustrating to see that you are ignoring 4 different references written by independent reputable sources and simply looking at the fact that the author is the Chief Architect of the product. Is this this where you think the conflict of interest is coming from? The chief architect of a product is the most qualified person to write very accurate description as long as he/she stays away from marketing the product. Well, although it does not make any sense, we can simply ask another reputable author in the field to write the article. We can also remove the 3 or 4 references that are authored by that Chief Architect, although they are the only source of information out there about this breakthrough technology. Would that make you feel better? I am afraid that I am at a point where I strongly feel that if Wikipedia published less notable articles written by our competition and refuse to publish our article, this will harm everyone. You and all editors know that criteria regarding notability is not as precise as you think and it is very much left up to the editor to interpret it anyway they want. The trouble now is when an interpretation leads to a discriminating decision. On a different note: You say my user name violates the user name policy. Please explain. Please also explain where you see the conflict of interest is coming from. But, most importantly, explain why you believe this article is not notable. I wrote you a long email message and you never responded. So, maybe posting this edit will get a respond. Looking forward to your assistance to improve this article and get it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magdyshanna (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I can hop in here for a minute, I just want to warn you about referring to something as "our". It infers ownership, which goes against the spirit of WP:OWN. Also, be aware that Wikipedia is not just for people who are into one specific thing. It's for everyone, which is part of the reason you need to have sources to back everything up. You can't assume that because something is known within a niche that it's known to everyone or even that it's notable to everyone. The fact is that in order to have an article on Wikipedia, you need to have reliable third party sources. It's strict, but that's how Wikipedia works. As far as conflict of interest goes, that's a tricky situation. It's pretty easy for someone to have a COI and not even notice it. For example, I work for a company that has had some news articles written about them, but not enough to make it notable per WP:CORP. However, I don't realize that these sources aren't enough (not reliable enough and/or not enough of them) to qualify it and write the article, which gets sent for deletion despite me claiming that my company is notable within it's area. My conflict of interest is that because I have a personal interest in the group, I don't really see how my company doesn't meet notability guidelines. I'm emotionally tied up in the article. The same thing would apply if I was writing about someone I knew. COI is normally brought in because of neutrality reasons, but it can apply to sourcing as well. I'm not sure if either of you are personally involved in the pages you're discussing, but it's just so easy for things to seem personal when you're writing about something you have a vested interest in. That's why even though it's not banned, it's discouraged for someone to write about something or someone they're involved with. What I recommend is that you look into seeing if anyone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Software could help find more reliable sources. (Note that you should ask them to help you find sources, not to ask them enmasse to vote on the AfD. That's seen as canvassing per WP:CANVAS.) Even if the article(s) do get deleted, you might want to look into seeing if you can userfy the article and continue to seek assistance until more reliable sources can be found. Just make sure that if it is kept, you continue to look for more sources to prove notability or it will inevitably get brought up for deletion again for the same reasons. I noticed that Atpapa only came back on once his article came up for deletion a year later, so I must emphasize that you can never assume that anyone else will find or add reliable sources for you. Always assume that you will be the only person contributing to the article and that it will be deleted tomorrow if you don't properly source and write the article. As for Magdyshanna, I also recommend that you look into getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Software to help you with proper sourcing for the article as well as making it more encyclopedic. While I admit that I'm no Roberta Williams, I can see where Pol430's rationale was for your article. It needs a lot of work and while I don't think it's hopeless, he's right in that it'd get eaten alive in a speedy delete or AfD discussion. Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Software would be a great place for you to seek resources and assistance.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Robert Edwin Newbery MC
Removal of 'orphan' tag: The tag was removed because I linked him to 'officers of the Machine Gun Corps', which I am researching. If this is mistaken then please accept my apologies and feel free to reinstate the 'Orphan' tag. BritAirman (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see, that's not quite the meaning of the term orphan. An orphaned article is one that has no links from other articles. In order to stop it from being an orphan, it is necessary to goto a related article and link that article to the orphaned one. I only questioned your edit because sometimes people deliberately remove maintenance tags without addressing the problems, because they don't like the look of them—which is very much frowned upon. If, when viewing an article, you look at the toolbar on the left side of the Wikipedia window, you will see a 'toolbox' section and an option for 'what links here' clicking on that will tell you what articles link to the one you are viewing. Rather than re-add the tag I'll try and de-orphan it. Pol430 talk to me 23:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining, I am new to this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BritAirman (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, I have de-orphaned the article. Welcome to Wikipedia Pol430 talk to me 00:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining, I am new to this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BritAirman (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles for Creation
I've just left a message in reply to your post at WT:AFCP. If you can demonstrate that with the combination of your AfC moves and your own four creations, you can meet the threshold for autopatrolled, I would review those articles, and based on my findings, I might be prepared to IAR and grant you the autopatrolled flag. BTW: Nice to see you back :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Kudpung. I'm not sure I have enough AfC creations at the moment; but I'll let you know when I think I do :) Pol430 talk to me 09:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Lewis H Michaux
Your review of my article suggestion, Lewis H Michaux, stated that it was not possible to make sense of the references. I had initially misunderstood the coding system and the article was declined. I tried again. I hope it works this time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.10.129 (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll take another look when I have time. Another reviewer might get to it before I do. Welcome to Wikipedia Pol430 talk to me 14:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the references, I worken on a few more formulations, as adviced, to get a neutral tone ('haven' and 'key reading room' is taken out) - have you had a chance to look at it? Or should other reviewer take over? 195.178.232.246 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Royal Military Police
You said: Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Royal Military Police, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pol430 talk to me 19:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC) I reply with: Sorry to have left unreferenced chnages to an article, which is littered with inaccuracies and carries few citations or references. If I were to reference every change the article would consist of nothing more than footnotes. I am a senior serving MP officer with an acknowledge expertise in RMP history and have been published in journals etc on this subject. May I now be permitted to edit the article on the RMP (and on Provost Marshals)if I place some references? Thank you, praepositus (92.19.245.105 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)).
- You are welcome to edit the article as long as the edit is made in accordance with policy and guidance, as you are connected to the subject you have a conflict of interest. This does not prevent you from helping to improve the article, but please bear-in-mind the requirement to write from a neutral point of view. Any information added must be verifiable; this is different from truth and is a founding principle of Wikipedia. Verifiability is achieved by citing reliable sources. It is not necessary to turn the article into a mass of footnotes in order to make the content verifiable—more info on citation styles can be found at WP:CITE. Finally, please remember to leave a brief edit summary when editing, this helps others understand what changes have been made. I have sent a welcome message to your account talk page, this contains links that may be of assistance to you. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask me on this page. Welcome to wikipedia Pol430 talk to me 11:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- I have replied at your talk page. Pol430 talk to me 23:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
He withdraws the insole J BRITO
Friend pol430 already I him put references of a very trustworthy source and acquaintance musica.com--190.80.216.71 (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for reverting 173.214.235.201's vandalism and reporting him! -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- No problem thanks for reverting on my talk page too :) Pol430 talk to me 20:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
| Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report
We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report.
Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here
On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus). |
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You have a reply
on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
A Weaver on the Horizon
Hi, I am NeoBatfreak. The reason I write is that I see that you are a member of GoCE member. I hope to have an uninvolved editor doing a copy edit of an article of the CHinese TV seriel A Weaver on the Horizon, for grammar and structrure. I would appreciate it if someone did. Thank you very much.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, it would appear that User:Fraise has already done it for you. If you would like me to go over it again, let me know. Pol430 talk to me 18:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Offshore Mechanics
Dear Pol430, I am the person who wrote "Offshore Mechanics" as ASME Technical Editor. This article is not copyrighted, though the issue is copyrighted. Thus it does not violate copyright law. Truly, Jin S. Chung70.237.157.22 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Jin, I declined the submission because the text of the submission appeared to be a direct reproduction of a published work. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously, it is a matter of policy to presume that copyright exists unless it is explicitly disclaimed. It is possible for authors of copyrighted work to 'donate' the work to Wikipedia but there is a formal process to follow. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on that. Notwithstanding this, there are several other reasons the article will not be approved in its current form; for example, there are insufficient reliable references to establish the notability of the subject. There is also insufficient context to make it clear to a reader, who is not knowledgeable on the subject, precisely what the submission is about. Wikipedia is on online encyclopedia and not just a random collection of information. Article submissions need to be presented in the required formats and meet Wikipedia policy and guidance. I have sent a welcome message to your talk page which may assist you in improving your submission. Thanks Pol430 talk to me 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Removal of SpenglerFox page
Hi I'd like to know the reasons for deleting the SpenglerFox page. Thanks Aquacharm (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, article SpenglerFox was deleted under speedy deletion criteria: A7 (no credible explanation of notability) and G11 (advertising or promotion). If you feel the subject did meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and you can re-write the article in a more neutral tone, then you can contact the deleting administrator (User talk:Amatulic) and ask them to 'userfy' the article so that you can work on it outside the mainspace. You may wish to see this page of frequently asked questions—that answers some of the more common questions about why an article may not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pol430 talk to me 17:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Underworld: Awakening (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Civil Twilight
- Vairatgad Fort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Wai
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Fixed Nothing gets past this bot!! Pol430 talk to me 17:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
your question
I responded on my talk page. Frietjes (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Giuseppe D.
Hi there,
Thank you for your message regarding my article submission (Giuseppe D.). I noticed that the article has been graded in the 'B class' and I am keen to hear any feedback as to how I might improve it.
Thanks in advance,
Fbell74 (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)FBell74
- Hi, ignore the message in the template about it being 'B class' that was an error. There are a number of issues with the submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Giuseppe D.; the first and most important one being the references. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its articles (see WP:VRS for a quick guide to reliable sources--the full policy on reliable sources can be found at WP:RS). The most basic criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia is notability, it is impossible to establish the notability of the subject without reliable sources. Most of the sources listed for this submission are blogs, Discogs.com or other community driven content sites. In order to establish notability you need to include some better sources, such as: a review in a national newspaper; a significant mention in one or more books; a review or article in a prominent magazine (online or print); those sorts of things. I did a google search for him and the best source I could find was this one--That on its own is not enough and the other sources already listed on the submission do not meet the standards for reliable sources. Unless you can find some better sources I'm afraid the submission is not likely to be published. Pol430 talk to me 18:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Revamping Safari Company Page
Hi,
I was wondering whether you could tell me exactly what made the 'Safari Company' not notable so that I can edit it thoroughly to meet Wiki standards? Shirangavish (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Shiran Gavish
- Hi, for a subject to notable, to Wikipedia standards, it needs to be discussed in multiple reliable sources. Pol430 talk to me 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Offshore Mechanics
Thanks. I will draft Encyclopedia format. "Offshore Mechanics" has been used widely since 1982 in engineering and conference and symposium. For example, click on www.isope.org
Jin S Chung 70.237.157.22 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)