User talk:Techatology

Chat with Techatology

Decline at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AVA.ai, LLC

Thanks for looking over my article. I can figure out which section doesn't sound encyclopedia like, there are "peacock" terms in one section but that is a quote from the source that references it [1]. I can put quotes around that part. I guess if you could be a little more specific that would be great. All but one or two of my sections have at least one source.

Decline at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Downsize Fitness

Hey, I made some changes to the class section. I got rid of offers and the word "over" since that seemed like an advertisement. Was there anything else you saw?

The whole classes section reads like an advertisement. There is no need to put that kind of information in a wikipedia article unless you are advertising which is not allowed here. (chat) techatology 00:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hubert Benoit

Please could you indicate which specifically of the statements need better referencing. Thanks, Graham Rooth

Some of the references you used cannot be verified. (chat) techatology 12:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but which ones? They are all obtainable from the original sources, which is how I got hold of them in the first place. I'll give you full details if you can specify which ones are giving problems.

Decline at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grand Ocean, Saltdean

Hello, can you leave the originator a clearer explanation of what your concerns are? S/he's pretty close to being ready, don't want to discourage without offering suggestions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already leave a comment about my concerns. (chat) techatology 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh T. Ryan (2)

Could you please explain this review? While the draft certainly wasn't ready for the mainspace, I wouldn't say NPOV was the worst problem (as opposed to a lack of coverage in reliable sources), and even if it had been, that's not grounds for blanking and speedy deletion. Huon (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is too short and the name of the article is like a username.

The page name is a result of the fact that we already have a different draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Josh T. Ryan; it was chosen by the previous reviewer, not the author. Neither length nor article name are grounds for speedy deletion and page blanking, for all I can tell. Huon (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my bad. (chat) techatology 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Isfahan

Dear Techatology, Hello, Thanks alot for your comment on my article "Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Isfahan". I made some changes on the article. please check and give me advices. (little by little I am getting into this belief that up to end of my life I should edit and Wikipedia Admins reject.) Thanks for your attention. Mehrnazar (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Mehrnazar[reply]

Your welcome, I'm just here to help. (chat) techatology 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Techatology, Hello, Thank you very much for your confirmation. I am too glad for this. I will continue improving it. Have a nice day (or may be night). Best Wishes, Mehrnazar (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Mehrnazar[reply]

Your welcome, I hope you continue improving the article, continue creating notable and reliable articles for wikipedia. Have a good day. (chat) techatology 09:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Health Science Networks

Dear Techatology Hi, and thanks for the review of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Academic_Health_Science_Networks. I'm just about to re-edit the article, but it would help if I knew which particular bits sound like an advertisement. These are new organisations so I do mention why they were set up, but am careful to say these are aims and a "stated purpose". The article on Obamacare describes its "aim to improve healthcare outcomes and streamline the delivery of health care" but the article on the National Health Service avoids mentioning that it aims to improve the nation's health. Should I remove any mention of why these organisations were set up or what they are expected to do?

Any pointers gratefully received, but it would really help if you could guide me to the offending sentences. Thanks Inscribe Inscribe (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The operation and activity section seems to me like an advertisement especially the bullet list. If you can change that into less advertisement like tone of writing, then I will gladly accept your article and approve it. (chat) techatology 13:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that was really useful and a very quick reply, thank you. I didn't respond in kind because I got suddenly distracted by Wimbledon.

I've toned down the Operation and Activity section and compressed the bullets. Enough?
I added a final para to the Background section.
I've added links to the See Also section; and
I have left the list of AHSNs hidden as a note in the text. Should I make them visible or leave as is?

Great feedback, many thanks Inscribe (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article looks like ready to be accepted. Thank you for fixing the issues that I cited. Leave the list of AHSNs hidden or better removed it. (chat) techatology 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help and for your patience. Delighted to have got it sorted Inscribe (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main source is a newspaper feature that was on the front page of FUTEBOL INTERIOR which is one of the top sports news agencies in Brazil which are known to fact check and be authorities on the subject matter at hand. This is clearly a reliable source.

Thanks for taking the time to review my article and give me feedback. I'm new here and this is my first article. Many reviewers have said that the subject is not notable, but I think I have proven that the subject is, but your reason is a new one. You said:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS says:

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. The following examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. Definition of a source

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. Definition of published

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

My main source is a newspaper feature that was on the front page of FUTEBOL INTERIOR which is one of the top sports news agencies in Brazil which are known to fact check and be authorities on the subject matter at hand. This is clearly a reliable source. How can it not be?

It's the 1st reference. Did you miss this because its in the Portuguese language?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jordan_Older

------- The problem regarding your sources is some of them does not really verify what is written in your article. Please add more reliable sources. Sometimes the translator does a bad job translating your references, so it is better to add references that is written in english language. One last thing, please address all the issues cited by the previous reviewers and then resubmit your proposed article so it will not be rejected again. (chat) techatology 00:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC) -------[reply]

------- Thanks, I edited the article then provided the English translations then my article was deleted by someone. What should I do now. This is really becoming out of hand and a bit stupid. The information is 100% factual and supported by many references all within Wikipedia's guidelines. I now suspect I am victim of a wiki-gang and specific targeting by an attempted blacklist. What should I do now?

------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RadioFan#notebility this person denied my article more than once and now his talk page is suddenly erased, very suspicious.

------- Maybe your article falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. Please contact the person who deleted your proposed article and ask him what is the reason for the deletion of your proposed article. (chat) techatology 00:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC) -------[reply]

Decline at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bioscale

Disclosure: I have been paid to write the article (no surprise). Aside from the CEO's fellowship, which I have removed, where do you see it written as blatant advertising? Everything has an independent reliable source attached to it and is in a neutral tone. It has several strong sources and some weaker, though still acceptable, ones, which is more than I can say for at least a third of the entries in Category:Biotechnology companies (yes I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but still). 70.79.73.253 (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This part sounds like an advertising "It develops and manufactures products based on its proprietary technology, Acoustic Membrane MicroParticle, which uses "a combination of magnetic microparticles and acoustic membranes to capture and measure specific proteins by detecting frequency changes of a vibrating membrane", depending on acoustics, rather than optics." Please don't make it sound like an advertisement. After you solved the issues that I cited, you can submit it again and I will have no other problems with your work. (chat) techatology 12:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How else can I describe what the company does? I used a quote because I'm no biotech expert. It doesn't even come from Bioscale, but from an Xconomy writer. The sentence is pretty dry and technical and not particularly promotional as far as I can see. (Hmmm ... I see I missed adding the url for that reference.) Besides, this can hardly be called advertising - their customers don't appear to be your average Wikipedia reader. P.S. I didn't resubmit it. It was my employer, jumping the gun a bit. 70.79.73.253 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Modern Water plc

Just curious why this article was rejected. The sources are all properly cited and this article is about a publicly traded company. Could you please be more specific on the particular sections that are deemed unacceptable.

Many thanks,

Starsend Starsend (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts in your submission sounds like an advertisement. (chat) techatology 14:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page again, but I feel there is very little more that can be stripped out of this.Starsend (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank submission at AFC

Hello, you just declined my AFC submission for being blank. Where should the article be? It is associated with the talk page you marked at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Helen_Nelson. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission does not contain anything. (chat) techatology 15:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I tried again. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Helen Nelson. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for taking time to review Helen Ewing Nelson and for doing housekeeping related to my improper submission of this article to AFC. I appreciate your help. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]