Jump to content

User talk:Shar1R

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

Welcome!

Hello, Shar1R, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Nikmat HaTraktor, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cerejota (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Nikmat HaTraktor

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Nikmat HaTraktor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Cerejota (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nikmat HaTraktor

[edit]

I have nominated Nikmat HaTraktor, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikmat HaTraktor. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --VS talk 11:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:ComsecconsultinglogowoIS.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the image under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:CurrentComsecLogo.gif

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:CurrentComsecLogo.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:ComsecFinancialRept.Q42007.pdf. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the image under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Comsec Consulting Ltd.

[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Comsec Consulting Ltd., by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Comsec Consulting Ltd. is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Comsec Consulting Ltd., please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Comsec Consulting Ltd., to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Finngall talk 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comsec Consulting Ltd.

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Comsec Consulting Ltd., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Comsec Consulting Ltd. and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Comsec Consulting Ltd., you will be blocked from editing. Eeekster (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with Comsec Consulting Ltd., you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:CurrentComsecLogo.gif, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:CurrentComsecLogo.gif appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:CurrentComsecLogo.gif has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:File:CurrentComsecLogo.gif]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:File:CurrentComsecLogo.gif]] with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:File:CurrentComsecLogo.gif]].

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing messages

[edit]

When you sign messages, please use four tildes (~) rather than three, so that the time and date of the message are automatically added. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Comsec Consulting Ltd., you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard for your disruptive behavior at deletion review. MuZemike 06:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please step back from the issue

[edit]

I see that you have a strong objection to the deletion of an article and have taken it to Deletion Review. That's fine, and not an unreasonable thing to do. But the approach you are taking is not likely to be one where you make forward progress.

Wikipedia is unusual. It is a place of strongly held opinions, sometimes expressed hidden behind the venom of militant politeness. It is not a gentle place. And, for good or ill, it works by an approach of consensus.

This means that the whole content is decided by those, you included, who make the content. That's usually good, but can result in difficulties.

I can't judge the text you created in the article for neutrality. I'll take your word for it being neutral, well written and well cited. So may I suggest a quiet approach as follows:

  1. ask for the original article to be userfied in your user space.
  2. note that when I say "your" I mean the space allocated to you, but over which you have no rights of ownership
  3. On your user talk page place {{helpme}} and underneath it ask if someone would please look over the userfied article and give you pointers within the manual of style (etc) here to make sure that it can survive if re-created
  4. make those edits, and ask that an uninvolved editor then re-creates the article with you acting as advisor. (this is the COI process)

The approach you are using is just going to alienate the people you would prefer to be with you rather than against you.

I'm wholly unbiased here. I have no interest in the article itself except to ensure insofar as it is possible that any eventual article is a good one. I'm afraid you have had a baptism of fire. The best approach now is to allow the flames to cool. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a detailed reply on my talk page. With a little work and acting simply I am sure you can solve this. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This essay may help

[edit]

Quite a lot to read and digest, but read this essay as well as the note to you on my talk page:

If you are to have an enjoyable time here adding articles and editing articles you need to understand how the place works. It doesn't matter about how it, perhaps, ought to work, nor about how you want it to work. What matters is how it works. Once you understand this then you will be able to add new articles to your heart's content, confident that they will survive.

I'm afraid this means a bit of reading for you. Look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not first. Look especially at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Once you understand this then you have pretty much the entire trick to it.

It means that just adding a new article is insufficient. Wikipedia does require some work from its contributors. Creating an article with minimal information, providing no other citations, and doing no other work is doomed to failure.

To create a successful article there really should be:

  • notability of the topic that is the subject matter of the article. This is non-negotiable. Read Wikipedia:Notability.
  • citations to the topic from reliable sources. Check the definition of reliable sources, and learn how to use the CITE facilities in the edit window. You can add a parameter |quote= to the cite before you save it and use a relevant snippet of the item you are citing, too.
    • We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42
    • For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS
  • Do not forget a section for References ==References== and put in it the text {{Reflist}} to receive the things you cite.
  • wikilinks to other articles. An article that is a dead end is sometimes reasonable, but usually there are useful places to link to. Check that the destination is the article you expect, do not just create a wikilink and hope for the best.
  • wikilinks to the article you have created from other articles. This means that the article is not "orphaned" and that others will find it.
  • inclusion of the article in the most relevant category (or categories). Read Wikipedia:Categorization.
  • If a short article, deploy {{Stub}} in the article, or, better, deploy the best possible stub tag. Read Wikipedia:Stub.

One very important thing is to "let go" once you have posted the article. The only time it is "yours" is when it's in your head. The moment you place it on Wikipedia it becomes "everyone's" Letting go of your baby is hard. Read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. On Wikipedia we don't mother articles, we father them. Or we do that if we want to stay sane. Don't wrap the article in warm towels, send it out to graze its knees! Edit it further, yes, of course, but you have released your child to go and play outside. Watch it from a distance and just correct things when absolutely essential.

Please never, not ever, confuse the truth that you know and are 100% certain about with verifiable facts. Even if you know{{OR}} the colour black to be{{cn}} black, unless there is a citation for it, the obvious{{cn}} truth that it really{{cn}} is black still has no place here. Indeed a statement that Black is White[1][2][3] with a citation in a reliable source that this is so takes absolute precedence over the truth, Wikipedia is based upon citations and citable, verifiable facts, not upon truth, because it is an encyclopaedia, and, rightly or wrongly, that is what an encyclopaedia does.

Useful vs Notable

[edit]

I know you will appreciate the distinction. Very many celebrities are notable, almost none are useful. The reverse is true of many tools.

The problem Wikipedia has with things which are useful is that it is not a compendium of useful things. Indeed many notable things (celebrities!) are wholly useless, but they have articles because they pass WP:GNG.

There is a trick to getting articles accepted in such a manner that they reman here. The trick is to demonstrate WP:N, never usefulness. Sometimes that means cutting a lot of genuinely useful material from an article to concentrate only on the items that make it notable. For genuinely useful things notability can be found, usually, given time.

We expect people to go to the source for things that are useful but not notable. That also means that an article about Foo has to concentrate on the notability of Foo, with the assumption that folk will be inspired to visit foo.com to discover the heady delights of rolling about in Foo.

How to plan

[edit]

It's pretty formulaic, a process:

  1. Find references, good ones. WP:42 ones
  2. Select the facts from those references that you wish to use (you will cite the facts with those references WP:CITE is your friend here)
  3. Create a storyboard from those facts
  4. Using WP:AFC use the article wizard to start a new draft. It is not mandatory, but it guides you
  5. Write very neutral, flat prose, citing the references for the facts
  6. Double check your work and submit the draft when happy
  7. While awaiting review, continue to enhance your work

Note that an inability to find references means the draft is unlikely to be accepted (0.9 probability). We want new articles here, and we try hard to maintain high standards.

In conclusion

[edit]

Doing these things, even imperfectly, means that others are likely to be kindly disposed to the new article, and, if it is about a notable topic, likely to expand it. Even if they do not expand it the survival of the article is enhanced because it is likely to be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This is because it is a useful article since it gives information. It is insufficient for an article simply to exist, it must have value.

Things "ought to have articles here." I hope you understand that every editor here thinks that things ought to have articles here, too, even those who propose articles for deletion. There must, though, be initial article quality. That initial article may be very short, but, even in extreme brevity, must meet the guidelines, and must have the building blocks from which it may be expanded alongside genuine and verifiable notability. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If those building blocks are not present and the article is not about a notable thing, and has no verifiability from reliable sources then the article has no value to anyone, however well-written it is. Read Wikipedia:No original research.

I truly hope this helps you understand how to start to create good articles and enjoy being here. You may have had a baptism of fire and learnt that it is not a gentle place. Working within the rules can be rewarding. Trying to push the envelope always fails.

Apart from taking constructive comments on board and learning your trade here, realise that this is a complex place, and not always very kind. The only thing to take personally here is praise. Everything else is fluff and flummery and background noise.

These are my thoughts. You may disagree, so may others. That's fine, that is part of what Wikipedia creates - we work together. If you disagree, please let me know by using User talk:Timtrent/A good article and we can discuss it.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Circle of Sophistry". National Federation of the Blind. Retrieved 2013-11-18. White, as everyone knows, is the absence of color, and black is the opposite. Yet, what we call black reflects no light waves at all and is, thus, the absence of color—while what we call white (again to quote the dictionary) is: "The reflection of all the rays that produce color." Therefore, the logic is inevitable: black is white, and white is black.
  2. ^ "Black-Is-White - Trailer - Cast - Showtimes". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-11-18.
  3. ^ McCutcheon, George Barr. Black is white. Open Library. OL 7113506M. Retrieved 2013-11-18.

The essay is not formal WP advice, it's mine. A couple of folk have said that it has been useful. You may disagree with pleasure :) And if you do, please tell me Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied article

[edit]

It is at User:Shar1R/Comsec temporary page.

I can see why it was deleted, because it does read like a PR document. I'm goig to have a go at it to start to knock it into shape. Please take cues from me, AND ask others to take a look. While we may not be "right" we will be able to make it a useful basis for others to work form and I am confident that it will go back as an article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have performed quite radical surgery. I think more work is required, most notable the incorporation of the references you provided as inline references within the text. Read {{cite web}} and similar citation templates.
What I've tried to do, without total success, is to remove any possibility of being accused of trade puffery in the article. I think it needs to be even more radical and that you need to use the scalpel even more. The overall objective is a wholly flat, neutral article that tells people who Comsec is, what it does, but NOT that it is awfully good at doing it. This means that you may not LIKE the article because it does not promote Comsec in any way (well, it does, I was not 100% successful!)
My challenge now is that I am standing too close to the article to make it WP acceptable. It requires other eyes than mine.
I'm highly sympathetic to the company. I earn my living as a Data Privacy consultant in the UK. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the article looks great thanks. I don't have any problem with the way it is written - it is objective and neutral - as it should be. I'm not going to be the one to add content, as I've probably been banned from this page, but is there any way to actually add a bit so it's not so stubby, there is plenty more general background that can be provided? Also can I add the references that the User Mgm wrote on the deletion review page? And is there any way to restore the logo? Shar1R (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO add back all that you think is reasonable. After all this is in a development area of Wikipedia, so fewer rules apply. When adding back, do be very careful to keep a very bald, flat tone
Now, logos. These are copyright, and we should deal with that fully professionally. First let's wait until the article has been allowed back into the main namespace. Then we upload it as an organization's logo and deploy it on the page. but it IS copyright, so you have to create a full fair use rationale for it to be used JUST in that namespace article. At that time, if in any doubt, ask an admin using {{helpme}} and asking the question. I don't think you want to release your logo into the public domian, just to make fair use of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've pretty much finished, though there is more to do. I do suggest that you add back that which is addable, but be restrained. Do see if you can migrate some of the references to inline citations. Only add citable facts, and cite them. Then ask an impartial eye for comments. When those are taken in board then ask using the helpme trick again how to move the article back into the main namespace. It would probably be best if a user who is not you makes that move.
Then let go of the article completely. Ignore it. That's the hard part. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so very very much. You have been so helpful. When I need to go about that process - I will certainly enlist more help. I really appreciate all of the time you spent on this with me. You're a Wikipedia Guardian Angel.  :-) 62.0.86.166 (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the hugest amount of time. I don't like to see folk get into a mess, that's all :). Wikipedia is a harsh place, for all it looks friendly. Biut it can be fun once you get the trick of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are ready

[edit]

I've asked that the article be returned to the main namespace. The request is at the Deletion Review. It now depends on others, which is right and proper.

What we need from you is citations to go at the two places where a citation is needed. I suggest that you find them and then let me or another editor know, and we can insert them into the article. This means that you find, we judge, and you do not get accused of COI.

I wonder if you would also email me privately (link on my talk page, left hand margin). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the link, I even tried the whole Wikipedia contact thing - and I can't see the "email this person" option. There's no link in the toolbox - maybe I don't have the proper permissions? I'm trying to get the citations requested (there is a problem with the SC Magazine website's Issues Archive - I emailed them). And again thank you. I can't say it enough. Shar1R (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go to my user or talk page. Left hand margin. Toolbox.
Is there also any coverage eg in an Israeli mainstream paper that can be cited. One editor is still critical of the degree of notability and daily newspaper coverage is useful to counter that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty, it's just all in Hebrew. Should I still cite them? This is all I had in the toolbox on your page.
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
User contributions
Logs
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
I don't have a link for Contact User or Email User. Weird. Sorry. Shar1R (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I suspect you may have to sign up for WP's email service yourself. if this fails remind me in a week or two. it will keep. Possibly in your preferences. Or you could email my colleague peter dot andrews at complianceandprivacy dot com (I keep my own email silent, but peter's is heavily filtered)
The Hebrew language papers... It's a challenge because the majority of the editors here, me included, do not read Hebrew. I Think the {{cite web}} template should handle it, but don't many Israeli papers have English Language editions? I know Haaretz does, for example. I would cite a couple anyway. DO use the template. I'll never be able to sort them out from the Hebrew!Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Snowysusan 21:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Shar1R, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

[edit]
Hello, Shar1R. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

Jonathan and Sarah, Teahouse hosts 02:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bjelleklang - talk 14:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Basically, the article needs to pass the criteria set in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In this case, I'd focus less on the products (most of the section called "Products & Technology" should be trimmed down) and more on the company. Find some in-depth press coverage where the company is the main focus. Avoid press releases, software reviews, short analysis or articles where a representative for the company is interviewed in connection with something else. You really don't need a lot of sources to establish notability, but the minimum is usually two reliable sources. Bjelleklang - talk 09:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
GigaSpaces, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— ΛΧΣ21™ 18:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cloudify, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spring and CRN (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) 09:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cloudify, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python (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) 08:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Comsec Consulting for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comsec Consulting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comsec Consulting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Michepman (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cloudify for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cloudify is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloudify until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Light2021 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shar1R&oldid=1140543465"