User talk:Timeport101

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Timeport101! Thank you for your contributions. I am ThatPeskyCommoner and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles

Please do not re-create articles that were deleted via a formal deletion discussion. If you want to re-write the article to address the problems in a draft state, please let me know and I'll help you set up a sandbox. Kuru (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine

If you're going to actually work on it, and to make it less advertising-ish and less promotional in nature, instead of leaving it untouched for over a month... okay. Here, I've restored it. DS (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I'll do my best.

I also left you some more detailed reasoning on Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 July 22#User:Timeport101/Verax NMS. The main issue is getting some independent coverage first. Thanks for your patience. W Nowicki (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again

On User:Timeport101/Verax NMS thanks for your patience. The deletion was not meant to be "punishment" but just following the guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability describes how the subject needs to be mentioned in some source. Generally blog entries (except perhaps some professional journalists) and press releases do not count. Anything self-written does not count. This is close I think. Does that first Software Developer's Journal article actually mention Verax? I was not able to get to it. Just mentioning the Adobe package used does not count - the citation needs to be an actual source that someone else can verify the information stated in the previous sentence. Behind a paywall is OK but not ideal. One idea: why not braoden the article to the whole company instead of one product? But if it only has one product that might not help. It is hard to tell from a web search how many different companies with this similar name exist - it looks like some did in the past. Was it ever written up by even the local press? (Aside: The name caught my eye by the way because a graduate advisor of mine had done a software project called Verex.)

Meanwhile there are other issues with the article. Generally spell out each acronym first before using and Wiki Link it to an article on the subject, follow by the acronym in parentheses if used again. WikiLink (or explain) technical terms that normal readers might have no clue about. For example, to probably 90% of the English speakers in the world soap is a hygiene aid. Do not put external links in a See also section. Avoid contractions like "&" for "and". Do not use apostrophe in "its" for possessive. At least one citation per paragraph (except the lead section) that should summarize the article and give context, not jump into details. Each sentence should have a subject and verb, and not just say "System" if you mean the NMS product for example.

I personally am having a medical procedure in an hour so may not get back soon. W Nowicki (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such a great response. Much appreciated. I'll correct mistakes and try to find more sources.I'll also try to make SDJ's article available for review. --Timeport101 (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, as a neutral reference work, our criteria on software or a software company are fairly straightforward. It doesn't matter how big (almost), what clients (almost), or how many countries. What matters is evidence of independent "significant coverage" in third party publications. Excluded are coverage related to product placement, PR, news releases, or coverage of a routine nature such as most companies/products can get, or trivial coverage or "mere mentions in passing" - the test is evidencing their decision that Verex is "of note" enough to be worth their focusing on (and multiple publications seeming to agree on this), not Verex's ability to get media mentions. Since Verex has been deleted in the past, it would be deleted again unless editors believe there is good evidence that it now meets our criteria.

This coverage may exist or might not. It's intended to be quite discriminatory and selective and ensure we only cover genuinely "notable" businesses and products. As well as the link to our notability guideline above, you might find the details at the start of the notability noticeboard helpful.

Hopefully this gives a very exact idea what's needed. Best of luck! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks FT2. Now it's 100% clear for me, what was the issue. I'll suspend writing this for a while, until Verax gain some more attention from reliable sources , etc. --Timeport101 (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking very good now, I think :o) Very well done. My personal opinion (as a new page patroller is that, if I saw this one, I'd send it on through. I've stuck one cn tag on it for version number. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips to help you out!

Hi Timeport101, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Timeport101/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How references work

Simple references

These require two parts;

a)

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>

b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";

== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Timeport101/reftest and try it out.

Named references

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there Timeport101! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Verax NMS. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Timeport101. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 15:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timeport101/Verax NMS revisited

Sorry for the delay, but I am busy in "real life". Now in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Verax NMS

Not sure about your question. If sources are "not correct" then they should generally not be cited. Perhaps you mean sources that are independent and "reliable"? As per the other feedback you are getting this is still borderline. User-contributed sources like Wikihow should not be used at all since anyone can say anything. The NREN conference presentation includes one slide on Verax for example, so might be good especially if you added its date and author, maybe even mentioning it in the body. There is a bit of pro-US bias in the English language wikipedia, although some of the natural doubt of European computer network "research" projects is well-founded due to the usual fluffyness of their publications.

Just remove the "latest version": no punctuation anyway. Just a manual published by the company does not prove anything. It could be vaporware or old by the time someone reads the article. If the product is truly worth an encyclopedia article, the information should still be correct in ten years. This is not an industry directory; customers can go directly to the company site to find anything "current". For that matter, the technical terms are stil not given any context nor wikilinks for most. General readers will have no clue that it has nothing to do with the common hygenic SOAP for example. If you mean Adobe AIR then say that with a link. To most people "Rich Internet" might imply a connection to some 20-year old billionaire for example. Most would think the company is in Indonesia due to the Java mention. Or has to do with nuclear missles. Spell out buzzwords like Java Platform, Enterprise Edition, and software development kit (SDK) etc. and references go after punctuation too. Use consistent date format: I prefer Month day, year, for subjects based in USA. The "independent notability" issue is what really what would get it deleted, but having a better formatted article with context might help reviewers give it the benefit of the doubt.

Still think widening to the company might give you more material (still need to avoid advertisement jargon). For example, the European offices might get some notice. Generally a product article will not stand the test of time if the company itself is not notable. A few exceptions are like HP OpenView, but others are being deleted as editors find the time. W Nowicki (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Verax NMS, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Please 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Chzz ► 13:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]