Jump to content

User talk:Jmcgnh/Archives/2017/02

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Milford granite, treasury building

The weekly paper in Milford, NH, has this article this week, about the granite for the columns on the treasury building shown on the $10 bill: http://www.cabinet.com/cabinet/cabinetnews/1089846-308/not-carved-in-stone.html ... just as we were debating the issue in wikipedia.

Coincidence? (spooky music) You decide! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@DavidWBrooks: I believe in coincidence.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi You reverted a change I made on the SIX_Financial_Information page removing an "advertising tag" Can you explain to me which part is written like an advert? The company is operational but the wording truly describes only its functions. I would really appreciate help in figuring out why it reads like an advert. qhb (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved here from the talk page of one of my subpages. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Rgnewbury: I'd be happy to discuss my reasoning, but at the moment it looks like you've referred me to the wrong page. More likely, you are referring to SIX Group.
It's a judgement call whether to apply the advertising flag or a bunch of unreferenced section tags. Since it had already had the advertising tag applied to it before, I thought it best to restore it. When a page about a company is basically a business directory entry, as this one mostly seems to be, this tag can be appropriately applied. It does not call for the page to be deleted, it just signals that it needs to be expanded with additional sourced material to round out the article. I don't doubt that the company can be qualified as notable, but the references given in the article don't do it well for Wikipedia definitions of notable.
I'm not a new page reviewer, but if I were (perhaps they'd disqualify me from the position for holding this view), I'd insist that all unreferenced material have proper sources or be deleted before the article could be accepted. There are already far too many low-quality WP pages and the best leverage we have is to get the initial authors to do their work properly. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

and/or is prohibited per WP's Manual of Style

and/or is prohibited by Wikipedia:Manual of Style which says that it should be replaced with "or" or "and". Μπάμπης Κανδής (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. My apologies posted already to your talk page. I was misreading the before/after status. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)