links: deltalk, WP:AFD, WP:PRODSUM, WP:CSD, WP:DELREV
This is not fixed boilerplate, but it consists of some frequent advice which I customize to fit the circumstances.
The peculiar way it works here, is that it is not a good idea to make stub articles and then fill them in--it is much safer to set them up off-wiki, add a newspaper reference or two, and then put them in, one at a time. We are trying to figure out some way to keep people from deleting incomplete articles as soon as they are made, but haven't found one that can also cope with the immense amount of real junk that people put in--we actually need to delete 1000 articles a day. There is one semi-secret trick: type in
This
user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this
user page
has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{
in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was
last edited by
Frietjes (
talk |
contribs) 6 years ago. (
Update timer) |
-- It should give you a day or two grace.
And there is another trick, not secret at all. Register. It is just as anonymous--actually, much more anonymous. And then you get known for doing good stuff. DGG (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
{{hangon}} to the top of this page, and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on its talk page. This will alert administrators to your intention, and should permit you the time to write your explanation.
I apologize for not having the time to help more personally. --
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and many of those who join the discussion will probably want to delete the article if it remains unimproved--and they are generally correct. Good luck--I wish you the best. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
---multi-bio---
I apologize for not having the time to help more personally.
I apologize for not having the time to help more personally.
I have removed the speedy tag, because I think national candidate of major parties are always N, and I include the Greens as a major party at least in canada. My opinion is not universally shared, so i urge you to write a very strong article backed by unimpeachable third party published sources I apologize for not having the time to help more personally.
This has to be done within the next day or two to do any good. I apologize for not having the time to help personally.
what to do about it
She seems a worthy subject for an article, but there is, very unfortunately, some prejudice here against even important people from the academic world. if you would like the article to remain you must write it in the WP style, which includes:
and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine, or newspaper stories about an award. Campus student newspapers are generally not OK. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog. There is, very unfortunately, some prejudice against people from the academic world.
There is understandable feeling here against articles written by the subject or a member of his family, so it has to be a really solid article. See WP:AUTO and WP:COI
If you do not do this right away, the article will probably be deleted in a day or two--though not by me. If this happens, just recreate it, but take you time--maybe in a week after careful preparation I apologize for not having the time to help personally.
As the reviewing administrator, in order to prevent deletion of the CV of Peter james masquerading as a WP article, I removed the un-encyclopedic material, and removed the speedy delete tag that an editor had placed on the material. It needs some further attention:
Sources for The Dual Inheritance Theory of Cultural Evolution
Hello. Good work on [[ , and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in it? You can simply add links, preferably as inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks!
(User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus)
{{subst:PRODWarning|Sir Nothing Goes}}
Another editor has added a "prod" template to the article : Sir Nothing Goes , suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor did not believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, (see "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.
Dear friend, to get this article to stay in you must: 1. Provide some more information about the subject 2. Provide at least two references to reliable sources about the subject's life , accomplishments, or role in history 3. explicitly say in the first sentence why he is important .
For less notable individuals, try including them in a group article.
If you do not do this immediately, the article will probably be deleted in a day or two--though not by me. If this happens, just recreate it, but take you time--maybe in a week after careful preparation I apologize for not having the time to help personally.
I have given you a head start and a guide by deleting some clearly inappropriate material DGG 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
probably soon will be put on the AfD list to discuss its possible deletion, if it does not contain a little more relevant information about notability, and good references.
I would much rather have it able to stay in, but it will need in particular
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and some of the people there quite reasonably want to delete an article like this if it is unimproved.
The only way to actually show what your product is that is sometimes accepted is a single photograph or screenshot, but we can only use it if your formally donate it to us under the provisions of WP:DCP, which means releasing all rights, even the right to commercial use. There is no guarantee that the gift will remain of WP if it is thought inappropriate, and the gift is nevertheless irrevocable. See WP:COPY for further information.
you are certainly welcome to repost it as long as you improve it. The content said only that it was one brand of skyr , which county in NY the milk came from, and who sells it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. The information provided is available in many web sites, and in some cases in fuller form. I see from them that it has been known in Iceland as a specific brand, but this was not mentioned in the article, What you need to do is describe the product--and what there is special about this brand that would be important to a reader of an encyclopedia . That's step one--to provide encyclopedic information. Step two is to omit sales information-and who sells it is exactly the sort of thing to omit. The third step, essential for any article, but certainly for a commerical product, is to have two references, print or online, talking about it to show that other people think it important. They have to be from 3rd party sources unrelated to your business. They have to be published sources--blogs do not count --they have to be edited, published material. . Checking Google, the Observer article about you would be a good source for an article about Siggi, (but see WP:AUTO & WP:COI before you write it)--however, it does not mention the brand of skyr. The Epicurious blog --a resource I myself use for practical purposes--would not count--anyone can send in materials. If there's no English material, you can use Icelandic, if you provide a translation of the title and the key words. Please be aware of WP:COI. It is not prohibited to write an article about your own product, but such articles are looked on extremely carefully. If the article is inadequate, someone will surely delete it. Any editor can mark an article for deletion, and any admin can delete.
"The Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering (usually abbreviated as APJ), is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, published since 2006 by John Wiley & Sons. In six issues per year, OK so far it publishes high quality papers and special topic issues in chemical-engineering related and specialised areas.all journals say they publish high quality papers; all journals with chemical engineering in the title cover chemical engineering. If the title is non-descriptive, then there's a point in such statements. That a journal publishes review articles or symposia is worth mentioning--we don't at the moment have classification for them, but they are planned. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering will focus particular attention on the key areas of; Process Application (separation, polymer, catalysis, nanotechnology, ferrous metallurgy), Energy and Environmental Technology (natural resources, coal gasification, gas liquidation, air pollution control, water treatment, waste utilisation and management) and Food, Pharmaceutical & Bioengineering (biomaterials, bioprocess, biochemical engineering) this is simply a list of all the applied fields; if said at all, I'd write It emphasizes applied rather than theoretical studies. but dont repeat the name. of the journal too often. Formerly known as Developments in Chemical Engineering and Mineral Processing: The Australasian Research Journal, published by Curtin University of Technology in print only (ISSN:0969-1855). we want this information, and in fact we'd like a statement of what formats a journal is published in--many humanities journals for example are still not online. 1 Audience/Readership Readership will include researchers working in chemical or process engineering –particularly in the emerging areas of fluid mechanics, particle science and biotechnology, nanotechnology, catalysis and process systems engineering. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering is of interest to professional chemical engineers working in industries that involve chemical processes." we do not want this. it's obvious, unless the orientation is such as to say "meant for practical engineers rather than academic researchers" or the like. '
I've been working in large part on improving articles about magazines and journals since I joined WP--I'm now one of the many administrators here--so let me tell you what is actually needed for improving these articles, because improvement is needed, and in more respects than mentioned above. (I was meaning to get around to Elsevier one of these days, but it's so big I wanted to save it for last) With respect to trade magazines, the article should:
The [[2006]] [[impact factor]] is x.xx, which is 4th of 40 in the engineering subject category. the "of 40" part is to clarify if its 4th of 4, or 4th of 40. Give a footnote reference to [[Journal Citation Reports]] (brackets as specified) If you give these for any, you must give them for all journals, even if they are last in the class. But if they are not included, you don't have to say anything.
It should not:
Optionally (this is an experiment) If it is available through major full-text service like Lexis or Ebsco , say so, linking them. If there is an embargo period, give it , using a link to [[embargo (academic publishing)|]] The symbol just before the closing brackets is a vertical pipe symbol, usually shift-backslash, so it comes out reading just embargo.
As for categories, we're still experimenting. Separate posting.
If any articles should get deleted by speedy, or threatened, please let me know and I will check what's up and give my opinion. There is a level of significance below which we do not go. Or if there are other problems. If someone suggests that any of the above material is not appropriate, please let me know so i can discuss it with him. Better me than you.
When writing an article about an author, at the very least, add their best selling books. A good place to get the information from is WorldCat, look for the number of libraries holding them, as I added for [[ ]]. Now go add add the science fiction too, and look for some reviews of this famous author, and find her year of birth at least as a start to the biography.
I am informing you as a courtesy that that this possibly useful page, has been or probably soon will be put on the AfD list to discuss its possible deletion.
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and the decisions are generally--and very reasonably --to delete the article if it is unimproved beyond the present state. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
Questionable Reactionary Songs, needs to read like an encyclopedia article, or it will probably be deleted. What will be needed--fast--
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and the decisions in general are-- quite reasonably-- to delete the article if it is unimproved beyond the present state. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
Dear fellow librarian, as one of the administrators here let me give you some advice about this. Please be very careful in making external links to items in your collection. You are doing it well, but I think I should be a little explicit. The practice here is likely to be regarded by some people here as WP:SPAM, and if it is, the net result is likely to be that the entire library site will be put on our blacklist. This has already happened to one or two collections that were added too aggressively, and it has taken me considerable trouble to persuade people to reinstate them & I have not always succeeded--administrators here can only do what the consensus lets them do--we do not make policy. . I am concerned that this will inhibit the usefulness of the encyclopedia, because we do want to link to the best material. Let me suggest:
1/In cases where your library does hold the best freely accessible collection in the world, then it is permissible to put in a link to the collection--I think the link to the Galapagos Collection is for example justified. But the practice here is only to link to the very few best possible sites--if you know of another site that is better, you should enter that one. In either case, you should put a note on the article talk page saying what you are adding and why, to prevent anyone from thinking you have a conflict of interest--see WP:COI. For example, I do not think the link for Playing House is sufficiently descriptive. (the information does not have to go within the link, iit is aceceptable to annotate the link briefly, as [url XYZ collection] of material on A. Please don;t go by what you see on the page necessarily--many of the present links have been added carelessly. (Ideally one would say material "on a at the Wisconsin Digital Library," to be up front about it--the name of the special colection itself is usually meaningless.)
2/In cases where you hold an available primary text of the document being discussed, and can link to it directly, then it can make sense to add it, similarly to the way we link to such sites as Project Gutenberg. as an example, the link to the Plombal material seems appropriate. Again, you really should state this on the article talk page, and watch it for objections.
3/Where you have an good image, consider whether you can upload the file. The problem here is that we require a GFDL license for it, which is less restrictive than your standard license, as it permits reuse and modification by anyone for any purpose.
If you have any problems, just ask at my talk page or by email from my user page
I am informing you as a courtesy that this page on the Department of Baraminology at Minute State University has been or probably soon will be put on the AfD list to discuss its possible deletion.
To avoid this, the page needs the following , or it will probably be deleted
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and some of the people there usually --and generally rightly--want to delete an article if it is unimproved beyond the present state. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
Welcome to Wikipedia! The article you created, Lanier Middle School (Buford, Georgia) has been nominated for deletion by another editor. Please particpate in the deletion discussion (link at the top of the article).
I want to commend you on the work you have begun on this article, and offer some tips to help to insure edits to the article conform to the wikipedian guidelines. I see that you have used yourself as a reference for much of the material in your latest edits, which is not allowed at wikipedia. Only published references are allowed, and editors cannot personally act as a reference by vouching for the statements in the articles. That would be one form of what wikipedia terms "original research", or WP:OR, which is strictly forbidden at wikipedia. The Welcome Message gives links to important guidelines at wikipedia, but these might be most helpful to start with since so much work is already underway in the article. It would be a shame see it go too far afield of the guidelines and have to see much of it come undone because it doesn't conform. Wikipedia:Five_pillars is the key, and WP:Attribution gives further explanation of what is required for verification of the facts given in articles. Also, editors are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves in articles either. Good luck! Professor marginalia 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I happened to come across this page about your company, and it it quite possible that it may soon get nominated for deletion if it does not contain a little more relevant information about notability, and good references.
I am writing merely as a friend, and I would much rather have it able to stay in, but it will need in particular
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and some of the people there very reasonably want to delete an article if it is unimproved beyond the present state. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
It is not me that you have to convince that you are notable. It is the other people at AfD that will have to be convinced, and they will have to be convinced by what is in this article. I have a fairly good idea of what factors of an academic career people here thing relevant; I also have a fairly good idea of what sort of presentation is taken for vanity. Everyone who voices an opinion at AfD decide for themselves. They will get equal respect, for we are all of equal status. If I think their arguments better than mine, or the data they present more relevant, I say so, and change my opinion accordingly. You can find current and archived discussions collected at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators and judge the nature of discussions here for yourself.
I try to improve any article I come across that I think possibly worthy, to the extent that I have the ability and the resources and the time. There are hundreds of articles listed for deletion each day, and I try to pick out the 2 or 3 in higher education where my interests and my resources lie. I do whatever I think will be honest and benefit the article. Other editors do analogously. If I can make effective small changes, I do that. Sometime I or others rewrite an article completely, if the people who started the article are not able to do so. But "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly by others, do not submit it." You may edit as you please, and so may I; if I think I can do better, I will edit accordingly. I would never deliberately change any article to make it less effective, but I will always remove material in any article I think inappropriate.
My academic qualifications are of no concern to anyone in WP. (I am willing to discuss them off line--email me from my talk page) They are not relevant: it is the quality of work that counts, as judged by WP standards. I only hint at them on my user page to give some idea of the things that interest me. I only allude to them in talk or at an AfD discussion to give some idea of the sort of data I can find. Assuming for a moment I were a senior person in your specialty--which I am not--and I were to say in the discussion that I think very highly of your work, it would not help get the article accepted. It will be accepted based on the facts in the article.
I will give you some personal advice on your talk page. I will comment on the merits of the article at the AfD debate.
Note that this is all run together: to restore the formatting, remove the tag from the top. and the tag from the bottom. Remember that doing so will activate all the links
you asked me also for some explanation. I did not myself delete the article, I only marked it for possible deletion, and another administrator agreed and did the deletion. First, you understand now about not copying the web site. But second, you now I hope also understand about showing the company is notable. -- see WP:CORP. There need to be references from 3rd party reliable sources talking primarily about the company--product reviews do well, if they are in an actual edited publication, print or web. Blogs and the like are not sufficient for this. Then you have to write it as you would expect to explain to someone what you do and what is important about it, without any puffery. as a rough guideline, it if would do for an advertisement or a press release, the toe is wrong for an encyclopedia. Are your products unique in some important way? Have they been written about in the technical press. If there are patents, it helps, but arent enough unless its clear they are being exploited in a major way. . The company itself--has it been written about in the business or technical press? Are you a leader in the field in a quantitative sense--one of the very biggest suppliers--and have you suitable audited figures to prove it? For a comprehensive guide to all aspects of this, see WP:BFAQ, which also explains how you can release under GFDL license a photograph of an important product or application. (But, and I have to say it, if you are relying on us to help make the company notable, the article won't work. We're an encyclopedia, not a business directory. ) ' )
t appears to me, and to some others that have looked into that matter, that you have been editing both as User:Cees iupui and as User:Iupuicees. It also appears that there have been some problems with your contributions. But it seems to me that you are trying to make positive contributions to the Wikipedia project. I want to help you learn how to do that, and avoid future problems. This message is sent in an attempt to be make things work better for you on Wikipedia.
First, about copyright issues. Wikipedia has a legal duty not to violate other people's copyrights. A lot of people seem to think that anything on the web is free for use by anyone, in any way, and so a lot of people post content copied from websites to Wikipedia without permission. Therefore, when we find that things have been copied from a website, it gets treated as a copyright infringement.
Wikipedia attempts to be a free content resource. It is released under the GFDL. this means that even if someone has permission from a website owner "to post the content to Wikipedia" that isn't sufficient. Wikipedia needs to have assurance that the copyright owner knew and agreed to permit anyone to reuse the content, for any purpose, including permission to change it, or sell it, or both; and that this permission, once granted, can never be withdrawn. Lots of people who say that they are posting "with permission" didn't fully understand this, or the site owner who granted permission didn't.
Since Wikipedia is funded by donations, it can't afford to risk a copyright lawsuit. Therefore, if someone is posting copyrighted content "with permission" we need a letter or email from the copyright owner confirming the permission. If you want, i can point you to some standard boilerplate requests for permission that show you what is involved.
Second, even when content is validly posted with permission, other websites often don't make good encyclopedia articles. They have been written for their own purposes, which usually includes promoting a person, firm, institution, project, or cause. But Wikipedia articles are supposed to adhere to the neutral point of view. That means that they describe facts, citing sources where those facts can be verified. That also means that they describe the opinions that people have expressed about those facts, but they attribute those opinions to specific, named individuals or publications, and they cite sources to demonstrate this.
This means that it is almost always better to rewrite based on a source than to copy directly, even if the source is not copyrighted, or has given permission. If direct quotes are made from a source, they should be marked as quotes and a source should be cited. For example, in describing an organization, it may be a good idea to quote its proclaimed mission statement. One might write something like On its website, the FooBar association has said that its mission statement is: "Blah Blah Blah" <citation link>
You crested a number of articles about projects undertaken by the "Center for Earth and Environmental Science" of Indiana University & Purdue University. This seems like a good thing. But you did this in most cases by simply copying text from the website of the project involved. This is a bad thing, even if you had permission, and it is illegal if you didn't. Wikipedia probably should have good articles on these projects. You would probably be a good person to draft such articles. i am willing to help you do that.
Third, about user names. It is generally best if a single editor has a single user name. Sometimes a user wants a different username to work on different subject areas. A person might want one username for religious topics, and a different one for political topics, for example. But in working on a single topic area, it can get confusing if one editor uses multiple usernames. Also it can give the impression that the editor is trying to avoid restrictions by using multiple accounts. Trying to evade restrictions by using different accounts is, of course, not permitted.
Also, user names which duplicate the names of organizations are generally not permitted. For example User:IBM would not be allowed. partly this is because we cant be sure that a user really is an "authorized spokesperson" for the organization, and partly because the username itself can be seen as promotion, a form of advertising. Imagine User:Joe's Pizza. Both your usernames seem close enough to the name/acronym of the organization whose projects you seem untested in to possibly be a problem.
Fourth, what you need to do.
Fifth, what I will do when i get your message.
I hope all this will be helpful to you, and allow you to make many positive contributions to Wikipedia. I await your message.
Indeed, the kind of uniqueness of this synagogue should be brought not in some kind of "bullet point" fashion, because a Wikipedia article is neither a Microsoft WORD document nor is it a Power-Point presentation. You can have an entire section for ==Ideological outlook== or ==Core philosophy== and then elaborate, but no crass statement of a "Mission statement" as if this is some kind of "business report" or PR campaign of "talking points" meant to impress someone. In other words, the essence of the synagogue's mission and its uniquines can and must be couched in an encyclopedic manner and not in the synagogue's own propagandistic or high-falutin terms about how it views itself or toots it's own horn, rather it must be written and come across as if an objective outsider were writing a dispassionate and interesting description and explanation of the synagogue's workings, views, history etc. This is what is called WP:NPOV and it is key! That is how articles should be written and no doubt it can and will be done here as well. Thanks again for working to make this into a better article (IZAK, re Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas)
User:DGG,
User_talk:DGG,
User:DGG/controversy,
/pages to revisit,
/RS,
/priorities.
/std talk pp,
User:DGG/userhelp, ,
User:DGG/deltalk,
User:DGG/journals,
/to insert, /
User:DGG/speedies,
/sandbox,
/projects,
/WP Projects,
/other wikis,
/tech notes /
User:DGG/sandboxuserified/
User:DGG/sandboxuserified2,
User:DGG/DelsToWatch ,
User:DGG/sandboxConferences ,
User:DGG/sandbox/libraries,
User:DGG/sandbox/LCC
only works after successful authorized user login at the appropriate page.
links: deltalk, WP:AFD, WP:PRODSUM, WP:CSD, WP:DELREV
This is not fixed boilerplate, but it consists of some frequent advice which I customize to fit the circumstances.
The peculiar way it works here, is that it is not a good idea to make stub articles and then fill them in--it is much safer to set them up off-wiki, add a newspaper reference or two, and then put them in, one at a time. We are trying to figure out some way to keep people from deleting incomplete articles as soon as they are made, but haven't found one that can also cope with the immense amount of real junk that people put in--we actually need to delete 1000 articles a day. There is one semi-secret trick: type in
This
user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this
user page
has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{
in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was
last edited by
Frietjes (
talk |
contribs) 6 years ago. (
Update timer) |
-- It should give you a day or two grace.
And there is another trick, not secret at all. Register. It is just as anonymous--actually, much more anonymous. And then you get known for doing good stuff. DGG (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
{{hangon}} to the top of this page, and then explain why you believe the article should not be deleted on its talk page. This will alert administrators to your intention, and should permit you the time to write your explanation.
I apologize for not having the time to help more personally. --
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and many of those who join the discussion will probably want to delete the article if it remains unimproved--and they are generally correct. Good luck--I wish you the best. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
---multi-bio---
I apologize for not having the time to help more personally.
I apologize for not having the time to help more personally.
I have removed the speedy tag, because I think national candidate of major parties are always N, and I include the Greens as a major party at least in canada. My opinion is not universally shared, so i urge you to write a very strong article backed by unimpeachable third party published sources I apologize for not having the time to help more personally.
This has to be done within the next day or two to do any good. I apologize for not having the time to help personally.
what to do about it
She seems a worthy subject for an article, but there is, very unfortunately, some prejudice here against even important people from the academic world. if you would like the article to remain you must write it in the WP style, which includes:
and, most important, giving some 3rd party sources. A website at a university etc. can be one, but it cannot be the only one. Book reviews are fine, or newspaper stories about an award. Campus student newspapers are generally not OK. Print or web is OK, but not from a list or a blog. There is, very unfortunately, some prejudice against people from the academic world.
There is understandable feeling here against articles written by the subject or a member of his family, so it has to be a really solid article. See WP:AUTO and WP:COI
If you do not do this right away, the article will probably be deleted in a day or two--though not by me. If this happens, just recreate it, but take you time--maybe in a week after careful preparation I apologize for not having the time to help personally.
As the reviewing administrator, in order to prevent deletion of the CV of Peter james masquerading as a WP article, I removed the un-encyclopedic material, and removed the speedy delete tag that an editor had placed on the material. It needs some further attention:
Sources for The Dual Inheritance Theory of Cultural Evolution
Hello. Good work on [[ , and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in it? You can simply add links, preferably as inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks!
(User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus)
{{subst:PRODWarning|Sir Nothing Goes}}
Another editor has added a "prod" template to the article : Sir Nothing Goes , suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor did not believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, (see "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.
Dear friend, to get this article to stay in you must: 1. Provide some more information about the subject 2. Provide at least two references to reliable sources about the subject's life , accomplishments, or role in history 3. explicitly say in the first sentence why he is important .
For less notable individuals, try including them in a group article.
If you do not do this immediately, the article will probably be deleted in a day or two--though not by me. If this happens, just recreate it, but take you time--maybe in a week after careful preparation I apologize for not having the time to help personally.
I have given you a head start and a guide by deleting some clearly inappropriate material DGG 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
probably soon will be put on the AfD list to discuss its possible deletion, if it does not contain a little more relevant information about notability, and good references.
I would much rather have it able to stay in, but it will need in particular
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and some of the people there quite reasonably want to delete an article like this if it is unimproved.
The only way to actually show what your product is that is sometimes accepted is a single photograph or screenshot, but we can only use it if your formally donate it to us under the provisions of WP:DCP, which means releasing all rights, even the right to commercial use. There is no guarantee that the gift will remain of WP if it is thought inappropriate, and the gift is nevertheless irrevocable. See WP:COPY for further information.
you are certainly welcome to repost it as long as you improve it. The content said only that it was one brand of skyr , which county in NY the milk came from, and who sells it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. The information provided is available in many web sites, and in some cases in fuller form. I see from them that it has been known in Iceland as a specific brand, but this was not mentioned in the article, What you need to do is describe the product--and what there is special about this brand that would be important to a reader of an encyclopedia . That's step one--to provide encyclopedic information. Step two is to omit sales information-and who sells it is exactly the sort of thing to omit. The third step, essential for any article, but certainly for a commerical product, is to have two references, print or online, talking about it to show that other people think it important. They have to be from 3rd party sources unrelated to your business. They have to be published sources--blogs do not count --they have to be edited, published material. . Checking Google, the Observer article about you would be a good source for an article about Siggi, (but see WP:AUTO & WP:COI before you write it)--however, it does not mention the brand of skyr. The Epicurious blog --a resource I myself use for practical purposes--would not count--anyone can send in materials. If there's no English material, you can use Icelandic, if you provide a translation of the title and the key words. Please be aware of WP:COI. It is not prohibited to write an article about your own product, but such articles are looked on extremely carefully. If the article is inadequate, someone will surely delete it. Any editor can mark an article for deletion, and any admin can delete.
"The Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering (usually abbreviated as APJ), is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, published since 2006 by John Wiley & Sons. In six issues per year, OK so far it publishes high quality papers and special topic issues in chemical-engineering related and specialised areas.all journals say they publish high quality papers; all journals with chemical engineering in the title cover chemical engineering. If the title is non-descriptive, then there's a point in such statements. That a journal publishes review articles or symposia is worth mentioning--we don't at the moment have classification for them, but they are planned. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering will focus particular attention on the key areas of; Process Application (separation, polymer, catalysis, nanotechnology, ferrous metallurgy), Energy and Environmental Technology (natural resources, coal gasification, gas liquidation, air pollution control, water treatment, waste utilisation and management) and Food, Pharmaceutical & Bioengineering (biomaterials, bioprocess, biochemical engineering) this is simply a list of all the applied fields; if said at all, I'd write It emphasizes applied rather than theoretical studies. but dont repeat the name. of the journal too often. Formerly known as Developments in Chemical Engineering and Mineral Processing: The Australasian Research Journal, published by Curtin University of Technology in print only (ISSN:0969-1855). we want this information, and in fact we'd like a statement of what formats a journal is published in--many humanities journals for example are still not online. 1 Audience/Readership Readership will include researchers working in chemical or process engineering –particularly in the emerging areas of fluid mechanics, particle science and biotechnology, nanotechnology, catalysis and process systems engineering. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering is of interest to professional chemical engineers working in industries that involve chemical processes." we do not want this. it's obvious, unless the orientation is such as to say "meant for practical engineers rather than academic researchers" or the like. '
I've been working in large part on improving articles about magazines and journals since I joined WP--I'm now one of the many administrators here--so let me tell you what is actually needed for improving these articles, because improvement is needed, and in more respects than mentioned above. (I was meaning to get around to Elsevier one of these days, but it's so big I wanted to save it for last) With respect to trade magazines, the article should:
The [[2006]] [[impact factor]] is x.xx, which is 4th of 40 in the engineering subject category. the "of 40" part is to clarify if its 4th of 4, or 4th of 40. Give a footnote reference to [[Journal Citation Reports]] (brackets as specified) If you give these for any, you must give them for all journals, even if they are last in the class. But if they are not included, you don't have to say anything.
It should not:
Optionally (this is an experiment) If it is available through major full-text service like Lexis or Ebsco , say so, linking them. If there is an embargo period, give it , using a link to [[embargo (academic publishing)|]] The symbol just before the closing brackets is a vertical pipe symbol, usually shift-backslash, so it comes out reading just embargo.
As for categories, we're still experimenting. Separate posting.
If any articles should get deleted by speedy, or threatened, please let me know and I will check what's up and give my opinion. There is a level of significance below which we do not go. Or if there are other problems. If someone suggests that any of the above material is not appropriate, please let me know so i can discuss it with him. Better me than you.
When writing an article about an author, at the very least, add their best selling books. A good place to get the information from is WorldCat, look for the number of libraries holding them, as I added for [[ ]]. Now go add add the science fiction too, and look for some reviews of this famous author, and find her year of birth at least as a start to the biography.
I am informing you as a courtesy that that this possibly useful page, has been or probably soon will be put on the AfD list to discuss its possible deletion.
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and the decisions are generally--and very reasonably --to delete the article if it is unimproved beyond the present state. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
Questionable Reactionary Songs, needs to read like an encyclopedia article, or it will probably be deleted. What will be needed--fast--
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and the decisions in general are-- quite reasonably-- to delete the article if it is unimproved beyond the present state. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
Dear fellow librarian, as one of the administrators here let me give you some advice about this. Please be very careful in making external links to items in your collection. You are doing it well, but I think I should be a little explicit. The practice here is likely to be regarded by some people here as WP:SPAM, and if it is, the net result is likely to be that the entire library site will be put on our blacklist. This has already happened to one or two collections that were added too aggressively, and it has taken me considerable trouble to persuade people to reinstate them & I have not always succeeded--administrators here can only do what the consensus lets them do--we do not make policy. . I am concerned that this will inhibit the usefulness of the encyclopedia, because we do want to link to the best material. Let me suggest:
1/In cases where your library does hold the best freely accessible collection in the world, then it is permissible to put in a link to the collection--I think the link to the Galapagos Collection is for example justified. But the practice here is only to link to the very few best possible sites--if you know of another site that is better, you should enter that one. In either case, you should put a note on the article talk page saying what you are adding and why, to prevent anyone from thinking you have a conflict of interest--see WP:COI. For example, I do not think the link for Playing House is sufficiently descriptive. (the information does not have to go within the link, iit is aceceptable to annotate the link briefly, as [url XYZ collection] of material on A. Please don;t go by what you see on the page necessarily--many of the present links have been added carelessly. (Ideally one would say material "on a at the Wisconsin Digital Library," to be up front about it--the name of the special colection itself is usually meaningless.)
2/In cases where you hold an available primary text of the document being discussed, and can link to it directly, then it can make sense to add it, similarly to the way we link to such sites as Project Gutenberg. as an example, the link to the Plombal material seems appropriate. Again, you really should state this on the article talk page, and watch it for objections.
3/Where you have an good image, consider whether you can upload the file. The problem here is that we require a GFDL license for it, which is less restrictive than your standard license, as it permits reuse and modification by anyone for any purpose.
If you have any problems, just ask at my talk page or by email from my user page
I am informing you as a courtesy that this page on the Department of Baraminology at Minute State University has been or probably soon will be put on the AfD list to discuss its possible deletion.
To avoid this, the page needs the following , or it will probably be deleted
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and some of the people there usually --and generally rightly--want to delete an article if it is unimproved beyond the present state. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
Welcome to Wikipedia! The article you created, Lanier Middle School (Buford, Georgia) has been nominated for deletion by another editor. Please particpate in the deletion discussion (link at the top of the article).
I want to commend you on the work you have begun on this article, and offer some tips to help to insure edits to the article conform to the wikipedian guidelines. I see that you have used yourself as a reference for much of the material in your latest edits, which is not allowed at wikipedia. Only published references are allowed, and editors cannot personally act as a reference by vouching for the statements in the articles. That would be one form of what wikipedia terms "original research", or WP:OR, which is strictly forbidden at wikipedia. The Welcome Message gives links to important guidelines at wikipedia, but these might be most helpful to start with since so much work is already underway in the article. It would be a shame see it go too far afield of the guidelines and have to see much of it come undone because it doesn't conform. Wikipedia:Five_pillars is the key, and WP:Attribution gives further explanation of what is required for verification of the facts given in articles. Also, editors are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves in articles either. Good luck! Professor marginalia 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I happened to come across this page about your company, and it it quite possible that it may soon get nominated for deletion if it does not contain a little more relevant information about notability, and good references.
I am writing merely as a friend, and I would much rather have it able to stay in, but it will need in particular
I'd advise you to act fast--these processes proceed very rapidly, and some of the people there very reasonably want to delete an article if it is unimproved beyond the present state. I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
I apologize for not having the time to help personally. --
It is not me that you have to convince that you are notable. It is the other people at AfD that will have to be convinced, and they will have to be convinced by what is in this article. I have a fairly good idea of what factors of an academic career people here thing relevant; I also have a fairly good idea of what sort of presentation is taken for vanity. Everyone who voices an opinion at AfD decide for themselves. They will get equal respect, for we are all of equal status. If I think their arguments better than mine, or the data they present more relevant, I say so, and change my opinion accordingly. You can find current and archived discussions collected at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators and judge the nature of discussions here for yourself.
I try to improve any article I come across that I think possibly worthy, to the extent that I have the ability and the resources and the time. There are hundreds of articles listed for deletion each day, and I try to pick out the 2 or 3 in higher education where my interests and my resources lie. I do whatever I think will be honest and benefit the article. Other editors do analogously. If I can make effective small changes, I do that. Sometime I or others rewrite an article completely, if the people who started the article are not able to do so. But "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly by others, do not submit it." You may edit as you please, and so may I; if I think I can do better, I will edit accordingly. I would never deliberately change any article to make it less effective, but I will always remove material in any article I think inappropriate.
My academic qualifications are of no concern to anyone in WP. (I am willing to discuss them off line--email me from my talk page) They are not relevant: it is the quality of work that counts, as judged by WP standards. I only hint at them on my user page to give some idea of the things that interest me. I only allude to them in talk or at an AfD discussion to give some idea of the sort of data I can find. Assuming for a moment I were a senior person in your specialty--which I am not--and I were to say in the discussion that I think very highly of your work, it would not help get the article accepted. It will be accepted based on the facts in the article.
I will give you some personal advice on your talk page. I will comment on the merits of the article at the AfD debate.
Note that this is all run together: to restore the formatting, remove the tag from the top. and the tag from the bottom. Remember that doing so will activate all the links
you asked me also for some explanation. I did not myself delete the article, I only marked it for possible deletion, and another administrator agreed and did the deletion. First, you understand now about not copying the web site. But second, you now I hope also understand about showing the company is notable. -- see WP:CORP. There need to be references from 3rd party reliable sources talking primarily about the company--product reviews do well, if they are in an actual edited publication, print or web. Blogs and the like are not sufficient for this. Then you have to write it as you would expect to explain to someone what you do and what is important about it, without any puffery. as a rough guideline, it if would do for an advertisement or a press release, the toe is wrong for an encyclopedia. Are your products unique in some important way? Have they been written about in the technical press. If there are patents, it helps, but arent enough unless its clear they are being exploited in a major way. . The company itself--has it been written about in the business or technical press? Are you a leader in the field in a quantitative sense--one of the very biggest suppliers--and have you suitable audited figures to prove it? For a comprehensive guide to all aspects of this, see WP:BFAQ, which also explains how you can release under GFDL license a photograph of an important product or application. (But, and I have to say it, if you are relying on us to help make the company notable, the article won't work. We're an encyclopedia, not a business directory. ) ' )
t appears to me, and to some others that have looked into that matter, that you have been editing both as User:Cees iupui and as User:Iupuicees. It also appears that there have been some problems with your contributions. But it seems to me that you are trying to make positive contributions to the Wikipedia project. I want to help you learn how to do that, and avoid future problems. This message is sent in an attempt to be make things work better for you on Wikipedia.
First, about copyright issues. Wikipedia has a legal duty not to violate other people's copyrights. A lot of people seem to think that anything on the web is free for use by anyone, in any way, and so a lot of people post content copied from websites to Wikipedia without permission. Therefore, when we find that things have been copied from a website, it gets treated as a copyright infringement.
Wikipedia attempts to be a free content resource. It is released under the GFDL. this means that even if someone has permission from a website owner "to post the content to Wikipedia" that isn't sufficient. Wikipedia needs to have assurance that the copyright owner knew and agreed to permit anyone to reuse the content, for any purpose, including permission to change it, or sell it, or both; and that this permission, once granted, can never be withdrawn. Lots of people who say that they are posting "with permission" didn't fully understand this, or the site owner who granted permission didn't.
Since Wikipedia is funded by donations, it can't afford to risk a copyright lawsuit. Therefore, if someone is posting copyrighted content "with permission" we need a letter or email from the copyright owner confirming the permission. If you want, i can point you to some standard boilerplate requests for permission that show you what is involved.
Second, even when content is validly posted with permission, other websites often don't make good encyclopedia articles. They have been written for their own purposes, which usually includes promoting a person, firm, institution, project, or cause. But Wikipedia articles are supposed to adhere to the neutral point of view. That means that they describe facts, citing sources where those facts can be verified. That also means that they describe the opinions that people have expressed about those facts, but they attribute those opinions to specific, named individuals or publications, and they cite sources to demonstrate this.
This means that it is almost always better to rewrite based on a source than to copy directly, even if the source is not copyrighted, or has given permission. If direct quotes are made from a source, they should be marked as quotes and a source should be cited. For example, in describing an organization, it may be a good idea to quote its proclaimed mission statement. One might write something like On its website, the FooBar association has said that its mission statement is: "Blah Blah Blah" <citation link>
You crested a number of articles about projects undertaken by the "Center for Earth and Environmental Science" of Indiana University & Purdue University. This seems like a good thing. But you did this in most cases by simply copying text from the website of the project involved. This is a bad thing, even if you had permission, and it is illegal if you didn't. Wikipedia probably should have good articles on these projects. You would probably be a good person to draft such articles. i am willing to help you do that.
Third, about user names. It is generally best if a single editor has a single user name. Sometimes a user wants a different username to work on different subject areas. A person might want one username for religious topics, and a different one for political topics, for example. But in working on a single topic area, it can get confusing if one editor uses multiple usernames. Also it can give the impression that the editor is trying to avoid restrictions by using multiple accounts. Trying to evade restrictions by using different accounts is, of course, not permitted.
Also, user names which duplicate the names of organizations are generally not permitted. For example User:IBM would not be allowed. partly this is because we cant be sure that a user really is an "authorized spokesperson" for the organization, and partly because the username itself can be seen as promotion, a form of advertising. Imagine User:Joe's Pizza. Both your usernames seem close enough to the name/acronym of the organization whose projects you seem untested in to possibly be a problem.
Fourth, what you need to do.
Fifth, what I will do when i get your message.
I hope all this will be helpful to you, and allow you to make many positive contributions to Wikipedia. I await your message.
Indeed, the kind of uniqueness of this synagogue should be brought not in some kind of "bullet point" fashion, because a Wikipedia article is neither a Microsoft WORD document nor is it a Power-Point presentation. You can have an entire section for ==Ideological outlook== or ==Core philosophy== and then elaborate, but no crass statement of a "Mission statement" as if this is some kind of "business report" or PR campaign of "talking points" meant to impress someone. In other words, the essence of the synagogue's mission and its uniquines can and must be couched in an encyclopedic manner and not in the synagogue's own propagandistic or high-falutin terms about how it views itself or toots it's own horn, rather it must be written and come across as if an objective outsider were writing a dispassionate and interesting description and explanation of the synagogue's workings, views, history etc. This is what is called WP:NPOV and it is key! That is how articles should be written and no doubt it can and will be done here as well. Thanks again for working to make this into a better article (IZAK, re Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas)
User:DGG,
User_talk:DGG,
User:DGG/controversy,
/pages to revisit,
/RS,
/priorities.
/std talk pp,
User:DGG/userhelp, ,
User:DGG/deltalk,
User:DGG/journals,
/to insert, /
User:DGG/speedies,
/sandbox,
/projects,
/WP Projects,
/other wikis,
/tech notes /
User:DGG/sandboxuserified/
User:DGG/sandboxuserified2,
User:DGG/DelsToWatch ,
User:DGG/sandboxConferences ,
User:DGG/sandbox/libraries,
User:DGG/sandbox/LCC
only works after successful authorized user login at the appropriate page.