User talk:Q1445

Quilliam (think tank)

Thanks for your recent work on this article, which seems informative and neutral. I was watching this article (as an admin) due to a past edit war there. I would suggest that you might add something to the article's talk page about your further plans for improvement. (In the past, changes have often been made with no discussion). I'll offer one personal opinion on the content you've added. I'm not sure that listing staff members (in the personnel section) who lack their own Wikipedia articles is justified under our guidelines for what is important. If their work has been mentioned in WP:Reliable source, things would be different. You provide reference links for these people that simply point to capsule bios on the Quilliam web site. If you yourself are affiliated with Quilliam, it might be to your advantage to mention that on the talk page. This article has been languishing for quite some time without anyone making an effort to improve it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Anjem Choudary appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Q1445! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dlohcierekim 18:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

tagging for WP:CSD

You might want to reread WP:CSD#A7. It states ". . . that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. . . This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Certainly the two articles I declined to speedily delete asserted significance. They even have sourcing, which would argue for notability. If you feel the notability is in question, you might want to seek a community discussion at WP:AFD. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)