This is an archive of past discussions about User:Chzz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The folks with an agenda are editing Kinetic Sculpture Race again. Here's the latest diff: [1] Plus they're making very nasty comments on Facebook, claiming that you, me and User:Nytasi are the same person. I still don't see that her boyfriend's name has any relevance to wikipedia and I'm really sorry they feel a need to take this personal. However, I don't feel I'm the one to make this change due to their comments and again request your assistance. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
a) I don't care one iota what anyone says about me on Facebook,
I'm not really sure what could be different. It gives the highlights of his career in a timeline format and gives some personal information about the man. I reviewed "John Bolaris", who was a weatherman in Philly, and his entry is very similar. In Philadelphia, Bill Baldini is a legend... he had a Day named after him, by the City of Philadelphia. There's really no dirt on him. Please let me know, specifically, what I can do for approval.
-I could get into his background and parents, but I do not think it is relevant
-I could speak more specifically about the major stories he has worked on
The only two references that have any degree of information about him are "catholicschools" and "broadcastpioneers.com". "preservepennhurst.org" is by him, not about him. And BAC is his son's website.
I'm not seeing "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" here.
The article states facts, for example "born January 23, 1943" - where can that be verified? Similar for all the facts. They should all have inline references to reliable sources - please see WP:REFB.
Also, it is not neutral; for example, has shown versatility handling the most serious of stories, to dangerous stories, to the absurd. His personality, unique voice and notable laugh made Bill Baldini a cornerstone in Philadelphia TV-News, and one of the regions favorite personalities. - according to who? Chzz ► 20:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I did further research on my subject and would like to ask you if any of the following links would make the references stronger.
This is my first Wikipedia article so it's a learning experience, so thank you for your time.
This are some of the references i found that thought might be relevant.
Absolutely. You've actually got come great sources here. Go ahead and add all of them (maybe except the images...those aren't as useful) to the article as sources, and resubmit. I'll accept it when you're done. NoleloverTalk·Contribs20:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, is seems as though I am having some trouble understanding what qualifies as a reliable source for my article.
The Daniel Langlois Foundation, where a majority of the information for this article comes from, is an established charitable organisation who has received much of the materials related to this event. Much of the information from this event are not digitized, but rather physical books/notes which are housed in various locations across the country.
What suggestions would you give to someone new to wikipedia article writing in order to fix this situation?
Hi there Robinsonm5. I don't quite understand the relationship between 9 Evenings and the Daniel Langlois Foundation, but it doesn't sound (from what you're saying) that the DLF is a third-party source. While they may be reliable, you need independent sources to establish notability. Now, there's a somewhat common misperception that all sources need to be online to be good. That's incorrect. If you have sources in newspapers, books or magazines, it's perfectly fine to use them as sources. Just make sure you include all the relevant info in the citation: author, publisher, date, etc. Feel free to add those and re-submit. Hope this helped, NoleloverTalk·Contribs21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Nolelover for the info. Just to clarify, the DLF is an organisation that physically acquired the materials related to this event (video footage, audio recordings, papers, notes, etc.)
Since, more or less, what I am trying to do with this article is bring to light the fact that this event occurred and who was involved, which are cut and dry pieces of information, one of which (the artist/engineer list) is cited directly from the event program. Are there any guidelines I could look at in regards to writing an article about an "event" that occurred? Without physically going and tracking down materials, I can't think of any other way to cite this information, or is that something you suggest I do?
Yes...writing a good article is much harder than it first looks. =/ Well, I'm sure you've realized that you could just add some of the content to the article Experiments in Art and Technology and if it already isn't, redirect 9 Evenings to EAT. Anyway, if you are unable to find the needed sources, then there really isn't much you can do; articles absolutely will not be accepted without other sources, as you can understand. Remember, we're not looking for evidence the event exists. We're looking for evidence it is notable. NoleloverTalk·Contribs22:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Awagawags. Wikipedia requires all of its articles to be WP:verifiable, so we ask that you provide reliable, third-party sources for all of your information. Now, you have three sources (The House Theatre Chicago, Theresa Andersson and World Leader Pretend) but there's not very much specific info on the sources. Just like in an academic paper, you need to provide enough detail so that another interested party could find the same stuff you used. What is "The House Theatre Chicago"? Is it a website? If so, show the URL. Is it a book or magazine? Then give the author, publisher and chapter/page. Just saying that you got material from "World Leader Pretend" doesn't help much. I hope that helps. NoleloverTalk·Contribs21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Mostlund. Whether or not SlimCado is a brand name, you need to prove the company it is notable with reliable, third-party sources. That source really isn't a reliable source (its basically an advertisement from the company) and it certainly doesn't talk about the company brand in-depth, as we require. Note that Wikipedia is not a directory or the yellow pages, so articles are not created just because they would be "nice to have". NoleloverTalk·Contribs21:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but if the article is about the brand, then the notability of the brand needs to be proven. If the company is notable then the article should be about the company instead. Sionk (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahh, you're right. I mixed the two up; the article is about the brand, and the only source (and the link above) goes to the company's website. I have edited my first comment to clarify. NoleloverTalk·Contribs23:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
As u helping me so much, A kitten for you!
Dear Chzz,
I'm very happy that you r guiding n helping me out fr creation of AnokhelalJi's page. Appreciate your work and guide very much.. thanx... hopefully the article is now a matter to submit after i made changes according to your suggestions and recommendations.
~+BlueBlack+~ 21:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Packmania (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 February 2012
thanx fr helping me Creating article on Anokhelel Mishra ^_^
Dear Chzz,
I'm very happy that you r guiding n helping me out fr creation of AnokhelalJi's page. Appreciate your work and guide very much.. thanx... hopefully the article is now a matter to submit after i made changes according to your suggestions and recommendations...
I'm unclear why this hasn't been approved. Is it because it needs more citations? Or because she, a host of a national news/opinion program, is not deemed significant enough?
The main problem is the lack of sources, yes. We don't make judgements on the notability of a topic based on what it is or whether there are articles on similar topics, but purely on what independent, reliable sources have to say about it (so in this case a page published by RT itself doesn't count). Obviously we can't assess that if you don't link to any sources! There's lots (and lots and lots and lots...) more information in the pages Chzz linked to in his comment. joe•roet•c21:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Chzz
May you kindly tell me which parts I shall exactly edit or improve?
I have added both refrences and external links,I do not know what else I can add.
Best Regards
M.Kafi — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Kafi (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
--M.Kafi (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there M.Kafi. You've got a decent article, but Wikipedia needs its content to be verifiable so we require reliable, independant sources. You have some very basic ones, but only one source there (http://svt.se/2.61757/1.792631/sa_fjarran_anda_sa_nara) really talks about the man in any sort of depth. Please add more sources that go into his life a bit more, and not just database entries (which you have many of). Hope this helps. NoleloverTalk·Contribs21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
As you had asked for references from different websites, I have added a few links of the related topic from some top websites. Hope that helps. I can post more links if you want me to. Please check them out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.96.98 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
sir well i had to edit and add a little bit of stuff and i have got that this musician had some some in billiboard 200
now can my article be permitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arafatkhan283 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Remove references to facebook, myspace and youtube. They are not reliable sources.
Add references to appropriate reliable sources - such as newspapers, magazines, books, news-websites. Show where the information can be verified. For example, it says he was "born Tanner Patrick Howe May 24, 1991" - where can I check that is correct? The same applies for all facts throughout the article.
Thank you for reviewing my proposed article on the San Diego AfterShocks sports team. My understanding is that you wanted clarification about why this team was notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate any feedback that you might have.
You may be aware that men's roller derby is a fast-growing and fairly popular sport in the US nowadays. And, the San Diego team, while new, has generated national and regional notice, becoming more well known in the roller derby world than many other teams that have Wikipedia pages. For example, please see the following pages for other, similarly-situated men's roller derby teams. New York : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Shock_Exchange St. Louis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Louis_GateKeepers.
I have added a sentence noting that the San Diego AfterShocks are co-coached by John Hall, a legendary roller derby skater from the 1960's and 1970's. He may be known to readers from his time with the Los Angeles Thunderbirds. I'll also add a sentence noting that the AfterShocks are captained Brett Stang, widely considered one of the best players in the country.
I hope these additions might help to establish the notability of this team, and I welcome any suggestions you have.
First of all, please note that each Wikipedia article is judged on its own merits, so articles about similar teams are irrelevant. Anyways, if you want this article to be accepted, you need to add more third-party sources. You have numerous sources that go back to the team or league; those are primary sources and hence don't help in establishing notability. This source (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2011/dec/16/video-mens-roller-derby-san-diego/) is great, but you only have one of its caliber. Please add more source like that, and resubmit. NoleloverTalk·Contribs00:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
"Facebook" is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference.
Is there a real reliable source (e.g. newspaper/news website) where we can check that San Diego Roller Derby formed in 2008? If so, add that reference. If not, remove the claim.
"The AfterShocks have received national and local notoriety" - that isn't a neutral fact; it's opinion; remove that part.
"They are coached by roller derby legend John Hall, formerly of the Los Angeles Thunderbirds, among others. The team is captained by Brett Stang, considered one of the best players in the United States." - unless this can be referenced, it should be removed.
"The AfterShocks will play a full schedule in 2012, including games against NorCal, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Slick City." - same.
Can you give some suggestions as to how I can help meet the criteria. Alex Krebs is one of the most famous tango dancers in the United States. He has taught all over the world and commands international acclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangomike85 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what else I need to put in. It's much like the other pages of TV shows that I've found. The rejection tells me to look at the speedy deletion criteria for an organization and company, but I'm not quite sure if this is about a company or an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach8270 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
creating a new article about ESJ is very important since this journal is one of the most influential in the southeast Europe.
Can you please make the corrections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VSadowski (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
According to whom? The references provided do not give "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", which is what we require in order for the submission to meet our notability policy. It's not the reviewers job to write the submission for you or establish its notability. Please read WP:VRS. Thank you Pol430talk to me10:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Chzz,
Thanks for your review and feedback. I had received comments from a previous reviewer that I had not included enough inline citations. I listed a number of External Links that should have been included as References since they are all verifiable third-party citations that go to the heart of why the subject is noteworthy. I have made all of his suggested changes, which made resolve some of your issues as well.
The subject has completed the narration of two audiobooks that were published by AudioGO, the audiobook publishing division of BBC. Both of her audionbooks are linked to Wiki's ISBN search page and reference the pulication information on the books. Additionally, she has two additional audiobooks in various stages of final production. In connection with her first audiobook, her work was referenced and praised by Michele Cobb, the president of the Audio Publishers Association, in an article in the School Library Journal. All of her audio books are marketed and sold through every major audiobook publishing portal (AudioGo, Audible.com. theaudiobookstore, Amazon...and on and on).
She is also an accomplished actor and vocal performer, with numerous verifiable credits and reviews in national publications.
She is a noteworthy scholar, although neither National Merit Scholarship Corporation nor New York University publish lists of National Merit Scholars or Magna Cum Laude graduates, respectively. I guess I could scan her award certificates and have them notarized...?
I have chaged a lot and would greatly appreciate your taking another look and giving me some feedback.
The problem is, the referenced links are not about the person - they're about plays, or companies - they're not independent, and don't show "significant coverage" about that person. What's needed is, for example, two or three newspaper articles that are about her; if that is available, that'd show notability.
The fact that a person has published things, or participated in things, or written things, does not necessarily mean that they are "notable". If people have written about the things they've done, then they are. I hope that helps. Chzz ► 03:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi CHzz, I would like to find out what additional information you think is needed to make the article on Parkiew Center School noteworthy.
I think winning an Emmy (I can add a picture of it sitting in the school office), being a National Blue Ribbon School (indicating high test scores), and having an urban Forest (one of 116 rural and urban forests out of 2,637 public schools) sanctioned by the state of Minnesota are pretty significant events for a public school. We are also a K-8 school, not just an elementary school or a middle school.
I would like to know what specific events or activities you would suggest to make the school more noteworthy. I am really puzzled as to what type of information you are looking for?
We are at our enrollment capacity every year because people choose (and participate in a lottery) to come to our school - we do not have a built in neighborhood student population. We had a teacher who was part of a Fulbright exchange with a teacher in England last year. Would that tip the scales in our favor if I added that information? I realize a school cannot jump through hoops, but I would be happy to send you a picture of me jumping through a hoop.
I live chatted with several people earlier this week and one or two of them thought our accomplishments were noteworthy and thought I should re-submit the article after tightening it up a little.
I appreciate any personal insight you can give me. Thank you for your help.
It is not neutral - for example, it says, Families living in the district, as well as in surrounding communities, choose to enroll their children at Parkview where innovation, high achievement and global education are at the heart of the school. - that's opinion, not objective fact; it's not verifiable.
You shouldn't make non-neutral claims based on the school website - for example, that it "Respects diversity" and "Encourages active learning" - that's only according to the school. See WP:PRIMARY.
"The school's unique choice program attracts students" - who says it is unique? Who says that that is the thing which attracts students?
There's a lot of similar problems throughout. Stick to facts that can be referenced to independent reliable sources. Be neutral and objective. Do not include any non-neutral claims that can only be verified via the school itself - for example, the "Web Presence" section. Hope that helps. Chzz ► 19:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Chzz, I really appreciate your feedback.
The words I used to describe the school were part of Parkview's application to the US Department of Education's Blue Ribbon program. In order to be verified, the application had to be approved by the School District Superintendent, the School Board, and the United States Department of Education. If I include a link to the Blue Ribbon web site and provide a copy of the application as a file on wikipedia, would that be enough to answer the questions you have about the neutrality of the article? (www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/2010/.../mn08-parkview-center.pdf - Parkview Center School Application: download files Word | PDF - http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nclbbrs/2010/applications/index.html#mn)
As far as the web presence goes, the only verification is from the waybackmachine showing what other schools in the district had a visible presence when the Parkview web site joined the district web site. I will add the link for the district web site from the wayback machine. I will also look for newspaper articles from that time to see if I can find anything. Hindsite is 20/20 when it comes to keeping copies of things. I can then edit that section appropriately.
Thank you again for your help. janice Jsankot (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
As the school submission to USDoE programme is a primary source, it cannot be used to make non-neutral claims. It could possibly be quoted, but be careful not to give undue weight. In other words, consider the difference between;
a)
This K-8 public school was established in 1989 and
Respects diversity,
Encourages active learning,
Promotes communication between school and family, and
Fosters interage connections.
b) The school states that it "Respects diversity" and "Encourages active learning". (with ref, of course)
The first makes it sound like it is a fact; the second makes it clear who is making the claim, without offering opinion.
Hi there. In this case, this article needs a complete and fundamental rewrite to be accepted. I won't even look at the sources because Wikipedia cannot accept articles that purely consist of contact info. Wikipedia is not a directory, so you needs to explain why this company is notable. Removing your address and phone would be a good start. NoleloverTalk·Contribs21:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Chzz - thanks for reviewing. This is my first wiki submission. Could you let me know if there are specific sentences or areas that give you concern? That will help me to modify prior to resubmitting. Thanks Pkcemail (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Pkcemail. This is an interesting one...one problem you've got is that the focus of the article really makes a hard change halfway through. I would advise you to cut all that stuff about prostate cancer and write more in the format of "Prostate - Rectum Spacers are such and such which do such and such." A brief explanation of the disease may be nessecary, but not the whole paragraph you have. As to the tone, note that the last paragraph, in which you make various claims as to the efficiency of the spacers, is completely unsourced. Adding references there (or just removing it wholesale) would do a lot. NoleloverTalk·Contribs22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello - Obviously no one really is concerned what LGBT Veterans went thru with regards to civil rights while serving our country. Please remove my proposed page for the LGBT Veterans Memorial. 'Bigotry' is far more indexed on Google and we'll appear better there than on the Wiki. Enjoy your First Amendment rights... after all, we served to protect them.
However, the subject matter isn't relevant here; all that matters is, that all articles need appropriate references. I'm sorry if that seems unfair; that's the Wikipedia policies; it's nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of opinion regarding the subject. Chzz ► 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You need to provide sources for that and all other unsourced info. How does the reader know you are telling the truth? Without more reliable, independent sources your submission won't be accepted. NoleloverTalk·Contribs14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Being new to Wikipedia could you please expand on why you declined to publish the Independent Pilots Association - UK Pilot Union entry to Wikipedia when there is a similar page for a different pilot union with the same name within Wikipedia at:
Sorry, but each article is judged on its own merits, so the existence of similar articles is irrelevant. If you do want your article accepted, please add more reliable, independent sources discussing the group. Every article on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and citations are the tool we use. At present, you only have one. Feel free to take your time - the submission won't be deleted - and resubmit once more sources have been added. NoleloverTalk·Contribs14:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia page "User talk:Wduch"
>Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks!
I have removed the link but scientific organizations (such as the ENNS) are non-profit and have nothing to do with commercial content.
Reference was added.
Thank you for your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wduch (talk • contribs) 12:48, 3 February 2012
Hi. That first message on your user talk page, about external links, was not from me - it was from a user called Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk·contribs) - and, the message is dated 23 September 2007, so I doubt it is relevant now :-)
The second message (under "Your submission at Articles for creation") was from my 'bot' - that is, an automated program - which helps people who create 'article for creation' pages with no references.
I have added citations that, as specified in the wikipedia criteria you mention, demonstrate significant worldwide interest and participation in this organization.
I should mention that I have no personal interest in it other than as a curious reader who stumbled upon a curious picture of a superstar triathlete rolling across the finish line of an Ironman competition. I've now devoted numerous hours to this because it clearly is a subject of widespread passion internationally and potentially great significance for the funding of a brutal disease for which there currently is no cure.
If you still feel the urge to make a quick deletion of my article, I would invite you instead just to slap a "STUB" designation on it or to attach it to the Jon Blais or ALS page.
Hi there Celia. First of all, we don't delete AfC submissions. It will stay there as long as you want it to. Now, if you would like to add material to Jon Blais's page, you can. Anyone can edit, remember? :) As to the Blazeman Foundation...well, here the problem: Wikipedia requires sources for its articles to be reliably source by independent organizations, and a lot of your source are a little iffy on the independent part. Has this organization been covered in newspapers, books, or magazines? Those are the kinds of sources you need to add. Also note that Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your noble cause. Hope this helped, NoleloverTalk·Contribs14:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Chzz, nolelover or whoever is going to take the next potshot:: From Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your noble cause: A caution for Wikipedia editors not involved with the cause]]: " Experienced editors not involved with the cause in question may suspect the new user of having a close connection with it. Such editors should respond carefully, to ensure that by alleging or deciding that the group is not "notable" by Wikipedia's standards, they do not suggest to the new user that the cause for which the group works is unimportant."
I repeat, I have NO personal connection with this organization or cause WHATSOEVER. I had never heard of it before a couple of days ago and have no personal interest in sports, Jon Blais, his family and only mild professional interest in motor neurone disease. But clearly many other people around the world are extremely interested in these subjects and I will admit that I was personally touched and motivated by that, convinced by what I read that this was a subject others might likewise benefit from reading about. I read and now include a variety of online sources, which I don't find "iffy" -- including university websites, wikipedia pages, local news sites and athletes' magazines in response to your changing view (now it's sources, not importance) of why my article should not be used. I won't trouble you further, except to note that I've found making contributions to wikipedia increasingly distressing and discouraging -- worse than a waste of time -- due to interactions such as I have had here. Celia Kozlowski (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies for not adding some context with that link. I am not in any way, shape or form accusing you of having any affiliation with the group. I should have specifically pointed you to to the section entitled "Writing about a non-profit organization", and said that you just need to be careful; your statement "...clearly is a subject of widespread passion internationally and potentially great significance for the funding of a brutal disease for which there currently is no cure" worried me. NoleloverTalk·Contribs15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I also think it is increasingly hard to edit Wikipedia, and I do my best to make it easier. But, if you no longer wish to discuss it, I can't help. If you do want to, either let me know, or you could seek help from others on WP:HELPDESK. Whatever you decide, I wish you all the best. Once again, I'm sorry you seem to have been distressed by attempts to help build the article. Chzz ► 15:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you please tell me exactly what about the article is non-neutral, what information lacks references, what references are unreliable an how I can make the tone of the article more encyclopedic?
I was very careful to be factual and site references so any help would be very much appreciated.
I read the page links you gave me; WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOT but I am still unsure on how to fix the article.
Hi. I'm sorry, I don't have time right now to check through every single line and reference; as you can see, this page is quite busy! But what I'll do is, give some examples; perhaps they will give you enough pointers, and you can edit it and resubmit.
Examples of non-neutral wording:
"known for an unusual and avant garde design" - according to who? That sounds like opinion, not fact
"the legendary fashion house Maison Martin Margiela." - who says it is legendary?
"A parasitical magazine, that only exists inside other magazines (this project shows that there can be alternative economy and distribution)" - the part in brackets; that may be the aim of the project, but we can't simply state it does do that
"The restaurant turned dining into an event with an open kitchen and seasonal ingredients that celebrated food and east London early 2000. One of the first of its kind"
"It is a collection based on personal curiosity, an interest for mistakes and tautological anomalies"
Lacking references;
"The founders of ÅBÄKE all studied "Communication art & design" at the Royal College of Art. They first worked together on their architectural magazine Sexymachinery which was initially produced at the college, as well as at the Architectural Association. After leaving the RCA they set up a studio in Hackney, east London." (the reference given does not show any of that information)
"Åbäke's work combines an interest in typography, representation and the social aspect of it. Åbäke was visiting lecturers at the Royal College of Art, London from 2004 to 2010"
The 'Current & Past Collaborators' section has no references
Unreliable sources;
As mentioned previously, "sexymachinery.com" doesn't look like a reliable source. I suppose it is a primary source?
"Tubmbl" is not.
"moussemagazine.it" does not seem an independent source, because the comments look like advertising of the product.
WP:NOT
There's a lot of information making claims, which are only referenced to primary sources. Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, only reports things that other (independent) people have already written about elsewhere. For example, the "I am still alive" lists all the places it has appeared in, based on a reference to "abake.fr". If others have not written about where it has appeared, then that information shouldn't be included.
"The Slow Alphabet" seems similar.
"One of the main interest of Åbäke is representation, therefore the idea of aliases is a reoccurring subject in use. Inspired by people like...<names>" - again, unless other people have explained these connections and inspirations, it's not appropriate for inclusion.
Dear,
Kindly guide me as to what more information are you expecting regarding this article as I really wish to add it to the encyclopedia as early as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama1993 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
IMDB and Discogs are just additional sources I have sent on the artist. There are two international articles ( Fabrika Magazine ) and two US articles, and in addition I have added two more which you all probably didn t even look at. I have spoken to a reviewer via chat and he mentioned that he disagreed with the rejection and asked me to resubmit. What good is it to resubmit if you guys aren t even bother to read ? please advise.
Thank you for the feedback. I'm a college student and this is my first post. I relied on the SafeMart website for information and then found 3rd party sources to corroborate their information. I made edits to my original post and removed anything that came from the SafeMart website directly leaving only 3rd party information. If there are other edits that you'd suggest, or if you can contribute something, I'd really appreciate your help as I'm a novice!
You've still got non-neutral claims based on the primary source - e.g. This approach was different than the way that most consumers viewed home security delivery. SafeMart eliminated the need to pay an installer for those with enough expertise. As technology in the home security industry advanced, and consumers began using the Internet to make other purchase.
Sections on "Products" etc do not belong on wikipedia, unless other people - independently - have written about them in reliable sources.
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
It has unreferenced, promotional claims - for example, Integrated with ERP, MES and Supply Chain Management solutions, Preactor's technology is used by more than 3,500 small, medium and large multinational companies located in over 67 countries and over 30 languages. Preactor works with each business individually to ensure to tailor the product to their specific needs
And has focussed its attention on the Asian market and provides additional resources for non-core software development as well as implementation support around the world.
I'm sorry - I actually did write examples on the 'decline', but for some reason they weren't saved. Sorry about that. I'll add some examples below;
"a master-planned seaside community, created solely for adults". Note, primary sources cannot be used to make claims.
"includes many of the same kind of services expected in any conventional community " - opinion, not verifiable fact
"Early History and Industrial Uses" has no references
"CRC began house construction immediately and the first phase, including the Village Centre, Golf Course and utilities was completed nine months later." unreferenced
"creative approach to blending with the natural environment and emphasis on architectural compatibility" not neutral
"Additionally, the Arbutus Ridge Ratepayers Association (ARRA), monitors and represents home owners in external matters such as health, transportation, public utilities, community growth and development, environmental protection and social amenities." unreferenced claims
"Characteristics of Community Life" section reads like a brochure, not an encyclopaedia.
I recently submitted the article for the Book, Deadest Rapper Alive: The Rise of Lil' Wayne and the Fall of Urban Youth. The article was rejected for the reason, "Not worth of inclusion." I wanted to seek consideration, seeing that this book obtains 6 million search results, has been followed by major news magazines, and is used by Ministers, Jails, and Parents.
This book is one of a kind because it is a Christian Polemic that deal with pop-culture. I humbly ask that you reconsider the decision.
I think the table is OK, except the 'possibly non-public' folks in the R column; so maybe remove that column, and possibly for the one blue-link, put it in brackets? vis,
Thanks for understanding the problem/suggestion. It's just that naming individuals who are not "well known/public" on a wiki page is a substantial problem, and we want to respect their 'presumption in favour of privacy'. Not everyone wants to be mentioned on the web; of course, if they are "famous", they don't necessarily get a choice...
Thanks again. Feel free to ask questions, any time. And if you disagree with me about anything, that's fine too; I can only proffer opinion (based on some experience though...) Chzz ► 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
<ref>[http://coe.berkeley.edu/labnotes/0204/history.html 1957: Billy Kluver, the father of electronic art, earns his PhD], David Pescovitz, Lab Notes, UC Berkeley College of Engineering</ref>
What are the problems with my submission for afranet. I have reffered Business week and tehran stock exchange for external references. Aren't those considered "external resources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.178.33 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The stock exchange is just a listing-entry; it doesn't show "significant coverage" about the organization.
"Business week" is also a listing; it has a little information, but is not enough.
The article needs to be based on independent reliable sources (WP:IRS - the information must be verifiable.
For example - "Founded in 1998 and current CEO is DR. Fereidoun Ghasemzadeh." - where can we check that? "the first Iranian internet connection provider(ICP) in the private sector with over 100 employees" is a strong claim; it needs a good reference.
Thank you for the comments. The fact that it is public with can be proven by having a listing on the stock exchange. The fact that it is founded in 1998 and the current CEO is fereidoun Ghasemzadeh is verified by businessweek. I understand that I do not have an english news website confirming that it is indeed the first one but if you check the other Iranina ISP on wikipedia you will not see any before 1998. Although I understand that a stock exchange and businessweek reference are "only listings" but I would assume that it would not be easy for a company to be listed on a stock exchange(!) and be referenced by business week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.178.33 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your constructive input. I've made a number of alterations to address what I believe to be your point of concern. Before I proceed to resubmit, could I ask you for one or two examples of your concerns, to ensure I've addressed them? Thank you again.
Hello Chzz. Thank you for taking the time to review my article. Could you possibly provide me with a little more information as to why the New York Mustangs article requires more notable information? The annual fundraising events as well as media coverage meets the guidelines of what should be classified as notable.
P.S. When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right. Chzz ► 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahh yes, I'm sorry, I see that now. Thank you very much for your time and advice. I look forward to more contributions.
--Mikeford5 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
and saw that there was only 1 reference for the entire article, and it was one of the labels website, and thought that by providing more then 1 reference my article would be on an even playing field as the champion records one.
Could you explain why the Champion Records article is ok, but the Champions Records one is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.56.218 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 February 2012
Rejection of this article is quite disappointing. I am a 72 yr. old retired former academic person, and I know of the struggle that a small number of people face finding a say to convert their work from an antiquated file format to a modern usable format. I was speaking to a mathematician today who has a book in Interleaf and could find no way to get it into a modern format--especially the equations. I am hoping my article will be helpful to people like him.
My point is, this article is not a user manual or a technical guide. It is a review of a problem. It is true that few people face the problem, but there are still many worldwide who can benefit from an informative background article.
Hey, thanks for the advice. I'm assuming I just need better/more-reliable sources to make it notable enough. I'll be working on that for now, I probably won't re-submit it until that happens.
Thanks again,
> This suggestion doesn't sufficiently explain the importance or significance of the subject.
Why should information about the most important series of conferences on neural networks be questionable? For scientists, and their grad students this is an important piece of information. It has several inline references and one external reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wduch (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the "several inline references and one external reference". In fact, I only see one reference at all. Please read WP:VRS, and remember just being an important bit of information to grad students is not enough. It must be written about by reliable, third-party sources. NoleloverTalk·Contribs19:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I was curious as to what types of sources would be considered independent. I believe that I understand what types of print sources are acceptable, but when it comes to the internet, obviously I am lost. Could you perhaps give me an example when you have some spare time?
Thank you for your time and input,
James
Independent is pretty easy: anyone not affiliated with the company, advertising the company or making money from the company. Wikipedia:Independent sources gives a slightly more technical, although still pretty short, definition. Note that just because a source is print doesn't mean it's independent. However, what you are probably thinking of when you say print sources (newspaper, books, magazines) are generally independent. Those can be used; not everything need to be online. NoleloverTalk·Contribs19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You rejected my post the other day suggesting that it was not sufficiently neutral. i have since made significant changes, following the guidelines of one of the other editors, and you have rejected it again. would you please give me more specific feedback so I can understand what i need to change to get this published?
Several statements in the article lack sources. The sentences tagged [citation needed] contain claims that need to be sourced. Can you provide one? If none can be found, it is better if they are removed.
In addition, please do not use subjective wording. Words like "nationwide" are meaningless and misleading to a reader from the UK for example. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not restricted to the United States alone.
Thanks for your comments. I'm just not sure how else to edit this article.
Would you mind looking at similar wikipedia articles on tv news anchors and please advise how I could improve mine?
Hi there Vosotter. First of all, each article is judged on its own merits, so the other articles about anchors really don't make a difference to this one. Now, I can tell you what you are lacking though: independent sources. ATM, you have his employer, his publisher, and a book seller, besides numerous social media sites. The only site that would be considered reliable and independent would be http://michiganmediacenter.com/tag/andy-dominianni/, so you only have one really good reference in there. Please add more reliable, third-party citations that discuss Andy in depth, and resubmit. Hope this helped, NoleloverTalk·Contribs21:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Somehow, you manage to be everywhere at once. This is considered a superpower in some places. Are you sure your parents weren't aliens? Ocaasit | c22:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Please use inline references. Links attached at the end of articles, particularly very large articles like this one are of no use to a reader who wants to verify information included in it. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to add references correctly.
Do not wikilink every other word, especially words which are readily understood in everyday English. It is confusing when you link words like "grade", "result", "work", "place" as all of these are unimportant to the article. See the relevant guideline at WP:Overlinking. Generally unfamiliar words should only be linked once, on their first occurence.
And lastly please keep the tone of the article neutral. In other words describe it as dispassionately as possible. See WP:Neutral point-of-view. Avoid self-aggrandizement and overly praising wording like "famous".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL00:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I attempted to re-write the article with as neutral a voice as I could. If any part of the article still sounds like a promotion, please send back comments referring to the specific sections that pose a problem. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAPCA (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability, the primary criteria for whether someone should have an article or not, is proven independently. The existence or non-existence of other articles has no bearing on proving the notability of your subject.
Being a candidate does not automatically make your subject notable as well. See the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Instead of comparing it with existing articles, ensuring that you can show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article will be more helpful. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL00:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
The content you created is probably more suitable to Wikinews/Wikinews multilingual portal. The fire is covered at AMRI hospital fire#Fire incident. I suggest you see if you can add anything to that section or investigate if the incident is covered at any of the various language-editions of Wikinews and perhaps contribute to Wikinews. (And please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~, then the Wikipedia system will sign your Wikipedia user name for you and also include a link to your talkpage.) Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bollywood and beyond film festival logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Bollywood and beyond film festival logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hey Chzz, I don't hardly know how AfC works, and I really don't even what IRC is--can't teach an old dog too many new tricks; I've barely managed to close AfDs. I tried to read the comments on your call, but since I am blissfully unaware of the technicalities I can't comment on them. Just this: don't be leaving, please. I see your stuff all the time and this place is a better place because of you. After close to a hundred thousand edits I can say that about maybe two dozen people. Whatever's bugging you, I hope it can be resolved (it's probably well above my paygrade). I could say more, but I might make an ass of myself since I've had some really, really good beers tonight. I'll light up one more in your honor, and hope that this too may pass (remember reading Deor?) Oh, also, I beg for indulgence for typos, haha. Take care, and let me know if I can help. I could, you know, arbitrarily block someone, or kick the dog, if that helps. Drmies (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Have removed all the pirmary research, started with the historical use of the term, shown the roots and then more modern usage with secondary references. Hope this now reads more like an encyclopedia and less like an essay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickobolensky (talk • contribs) 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you please kindly elaborate as what I need to do or include specifically in the article to make it notable. Kindly be specific as what is the problem with the article.
thanks shakti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaktisira (talk • contribs) 14:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Shaktisira - Please see this link on your talkpage: here. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes ~. Signing with 4 tildes will automatically add your Wikipedia signature to your posts. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Done article created by User:Mabdul Pol430 talk to me 23:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
