Hi, GregLChest. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia! -- Chzz ► 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Hi.
I'm sorry for all the difficulties.
I thought I would reply here; it might be clearer than on my own page, which is often very busy.
The large heading at the top of all pages is the name of the page, and the title. This page - here - says User talk:GregLChest at the top, because that is the exact name of this page. The article on sausages shows Sausage at the top, because the page is called Sausage.
Your draft is located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart, so that's what it shows, at the moment. But, if we 'accept' it, it will be moved to a new name, with no prefix - it will become SpiderGraph chart.
Therefore, there is no need for a heading saying == SpiderGraph chart ==
It's fine.
The easiest way to give unambiguous permission, is to send an email. You could copy/paste the exact text in the example page User:Chzz/help/myboilerplate, fill in the filename information, add a date, and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
References are essential. You cannot just say, "This is true" based on personal knowledge. You have to say where the reader can "check the facts". And they must be published, reliable sources.
If we are to have an article on "SpiderGraph chart", we have to show that it is covered in several independent references, that are not directly connected with it. Independent people writing about it. If it is mentioned in the "Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation", then great - that helps; but, it needs more than that. The article must show why this thing is "Notable" - and for Wikiepdia, that is done through using several independent reliable sources.
For example, you wrote that "This SpiderGraph charting has only one application". We have to tell the reader where they can check that. I imagine it could be checked in the publication that you describe as "Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., 32,1, 178-180, January 1985." perhaps?
I am guessing that that refers to the magazine called Control Engineering, which we have an article about: Control Engineering (magazine). I am not sure what the "32,1" refers to? Is that the issue number, or something?
Assuming for the purposes of this example that the specific fact that it "has only one application" is in that magazine, then we would add a reference something like so;
This SpiderGraph charting has only one application.<ref>"Chester, G. L., "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs", Control Engineering, issue 32, p. 178-180, January 1985.</ref>
It must have references. That is the only really important thing.
You cannot say things like, "Maybe the confusion between a SpiderGraph chart and a Radar chart started because both charts look like a spider web" unless there is a reliable source that makes that connection.
And Wikipedia itself - the Radar article - is not a reliable source.
Best, Chzz ► 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
Is there any chance that you could click on this thing, type in the wiggly-letters and a nickname, and 'talk' to me (via text) there?
If not, it's no bother, and I will answer you on the wiki. I thought I'd try. Cheers! Chzz ► 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I moved some of the older messages from this page into an 'archive' - User talk:GregLChest/Archive 1. I hope that's helpul; if not, it can be undone, of course. Chzz ► 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
...and regarding the email/picture, I believe one of the people with access has replied to you, trying to help sort it out. I don't have access to that system, myself. Hopefully you can sort out the permission by email. Chzz ► 15:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
Ehow is not a 'reliable source'. That's because anyone can edit it. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
Sorry that your edits were blocked by the filter, but we have to disallow links to websites like "Ehow" - it's rather like a science journal refusing anything that cites "MySpace". I hope you understand.
I'm quite happy to try and help you though, if I can. Best, Chzz ► 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 00:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Chzz ► 03:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
...that should help you create your article:
Hope this helps, Shearonink ( talk) 05:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to fix the first references to the Chester article. The Wikipedia software will do the numbering of references automatically, please take a look at
WP:Referencing for beginners.
What I did was take what you placed in your article as [1], looked for that reference down below and then converted it tino a Wikipedia inline-citation, like this:
You had... 1985 G.L. Chester's article: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," (featuring the "SpiderGraph," which was developed in 1981)[1]
I then converted that into...
<ref name ="Chester">Chester, G. L.: ''"Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs,"'' Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985</ref>
and added {{Reflist}} underneath the "References" header which makes the references section look like:
References
1. a b Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985
I found another [1] and converted the second [1] into <ref name = "Chester"/> which automatically numbers the references within the article, so all the places where that [1] appeared now reference the Chester article.
Hope this helps, --
Shearonink (
talk) 06:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I will try to be in the Wikipedia Editing Help Channel the rest of the day today. I have alerted an administrator (matthewrbowker) who's usually in Help about the various difficulties you've been having on your draft, so hopefully between the three of us we can get your AfC straightened-out. Shearonink ( talk) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. There is no need to sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. mabdul 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done some editing to your draft-article, but I think you need to be aware of some issues:
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 08:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 00:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You only are supposed to sign your posts on talk pages, not your work on article-pages. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article.)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article.)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article.)
mabdul 12:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
mabdul 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
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!
Shearonink ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
See
this page at Commons and
your Commons talk page.
Wikimedia Commons is the image repository for the Wikimedia/Wikipedia project. For the moment you should probably concentrate on fixing the remaining issues with
SpiderGraph chart, any possible remaining image issues (Like the required permissions) can be fixed later.
Shearonink (
talk) 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited SpiderGraph chart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Features, Comparing and Decisions ( 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) 10:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited SpiderGraph chart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Method ( 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) 10:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Gregory L. Chester 02:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
==Please Remove {{proposed deletion/dated 27 March 2012}}== and Refer to "Talk:SpiderGraph chart" for Author's "Objection to Deletion" and Response to the concerns mentioned in the 3/27 "Notice of Proposed Deletion" of the WP Article "SpiderGraph chart." Gregory L. Chester 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 00:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
==Please Remove {{proposed deletion/dated 27 March 2012}}== and Refer to "Talk:SpiderGraph chart" for Author's "Objection to Deletion" and Response to the concerns mentioned in the 3/27 "Notice of Proposed Deletion" of the WP Article "SpiderGraph chart." Gregory L. Chester 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The article SpiderGraph chart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Glrx (
talk) 15:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SpiderGraph chart 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/SpiderGraph chart until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Glrx ( talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 00:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm really busy right now, so I fear that I can't give you a decent response; however, I'll do my best with what time I have. Regarding the deletion of User:GregLChest/SpiderGraph chart, it's not a big deal. Immediately before I deleted it, the page had very little content; aside from a template that asked for the page to be deleted, its entire contents were as follows:
#REDIRECT SpiderGraph chart
It was a redirect page, which is a page having nothing except code that tells our software to take you to a different page when you go to the redirect page. By the time that I found it, the "target page" (the one to which you're sent when you try to go to a redirect page), SpiderGraph, had already been deleted. Because there's no reason to be redirected to a deleted or otherwise nonexistent page, our speedy deletion policy permits the immediate deletion of pages that redirect to nonexistent pages. Therefore, nothing I deleted was of any substantial import at all. For your situation, the big issue is the deletion of the SpiderGraph article. I can't help you with that now, but I'll see what I can do. Nyttend ( talk) 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say. What's happened has probably been both shocking and bewildering, and I'm sorry for that.
You've had a long experience with the article. There were several drafts while it was at AfC, and those editors tried to point out the trouble spots. The article was eventually accepted, but that put the article into WP article space where other editors could view it. That's were I came along. I didn't think the article was appropriate for WP, so I propose deleting it (which is called a "prod").
When an article is proposed for deletion, a single editor can stop the proposal by deleting the prod in the article. You clearly objected, so I removed the prod. I still didn't think the article was appropriate, so I nominated the article for deletion (called "AfD"). AfD is analogous to AfC: AfC is a way to bring articles in, and AfD is the way to take them out.
The SG article wasn't just deleted out of the blue. It was deleted as the result of a well-defined process. The SG article actually got an extended review.
The usual process at AfD is a week-long debate. Any editor gets to comment the article during the week. The editors give reasons for keeping or deleting the article (or some other options). At the end of the week, an unbiased admin examines the debate and decides what to do. Normally, the keep or delete decision is made after one week. After the week was up, there were only a couple comments, so an unbiased admin relisted (extended) the debate period for another week. Some more comments arrived. Then a second unbiased admin looked at the discussion and decided to let the debate run for another week. By the end of the third week, the comments were something like 10 to your 1 to delete the article. The reviewing admin must be unbiased. Also, he doesn't just count votes. He looks at the comments, weighs them, and decides which side has the better position. A majority votes does not rule. The admin, after that review, decided to delete the article.
Reviewing editors look for particular kinds of sources. Articles require several independent secondary sources that show the article's subject is notable. Narrow trade publications don't carry much weight; general publication carry more weight. Self-published works, press releases, company websites, and even patents are not independent of the subject. Consequently, those sources carry little to no weight. Basically, notability is a measure that a section of the public has taken notice of the subject of the article. Some articles, such as the one you wrote about the SpiderGraph, are consider primary sources -- they offer the first description. Primary sources are also discounted because WP is not evaluate a subject. Instead, WP waits for outside authors to publish sources that survey the developments in a field and pass judgment on what is important. That's a secondary source, and that is what feeds WP articles. What we needed to see were several articles in reliable sources that compared SpiderGraphs to other charts. We didn't find, and you didn't provide, those sources.
Many of your complaints were that you could prove a SG had certain features. That doesn't work because WP doesn't allow editors (they are called editors and not authors) to do original research or to synthesize new material from other sources. It's an important rule. It means that even non-technical editors can verify statements in WP by just going to the cited source.
The reason the vote was so one sided is that the other editors understood the requirements. The requirements are often relayed in short codewords such as WP:RS and WP:N that may be difficult to digest. By the way, when an editor says WP:TL;DR doesn't mean the text was not read; it means the editor thought the text was too verbose and poorly focused.
Sadly, the debate became a bit contentious. I understand the reasons why that happened, but I don't know what to say about it. WP editing can be abrupt, but we ask editors not to take it personally, and we hope that other editors don't either. You were claiming that other editors were not understanding you, but I think those editors believed you were not understanding them. It may be that a few did not understand, but out of ten editors, none supported your view. That's significant.
You've commented that some editors have not responded to your inquiries. They actually have, but one custom is to respond to a question where the question is written -- that way the whole conversation is in one place. User:Shearonink responded to your question here on the same day.
I hope the above explains what happened. If you want a copy of your article to put in user space, I think any admin would be willing to do that for you. I think Mabdul identified an appropriate version here.
Hi, GregLChest. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck! Chzz ► 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia! -- Chzz ► 02:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Hi.
I'm sorry for all the difficulties.
I thought I would reply here; it might be clearer than on my own page, which is often very busy.
The large heading at the top of all pages is the name of the page, and the title. This page - here - says User talk:GregLChest at the top, because that is the exact name of this page. The article on sausages shows Sausage at the top, because the page is called Sausage.
Your draft is located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart, so that's what it shows, at the moment. But, if we 'accept' it, it will be moved to a new name, with no prefix - it will become SpiderGraph chart.
Therefore, there is no need for a heading saying == SpiderGraph chart ==
It's fine.
The easiest way to give unambiguous permission, is to send an email. You could copy/paste the exact text in the example page User:Chzz/help/myboilerplate, fill in the filename information, add a date, and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
References are essential. You cannot just say, "This is true" based on personal knowledge. You have to say where the reader can "check the facts". And they must be published, reliable sources.
If we are to have an article on "SpiderGraph chart", we have to show that it is covered in several independent references, that are not directly connected with it. Independent people writing about it. If it is mentioned in the "Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation", then great - that helps; but, it needs more than that. The article must show why this thing is "Notable" - and for Wikiepdia, that is done through using several independent reliable sources.
For example, you wrote that "This SpiderGraph charting has only one application". We have to tell the reader where they can check that. I imagine it could be checked in the publication that you describe as "Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., 32,1, 178-180, January 1985." perhaps?
I am guessing that that refers to the magazine called Control Engineering, which we have an article about: Control Engineering (magazine). I am not sure what the "32,1" refers to? Is that the issue number, or something?
Assuming for the purposes of this example that the specific fact that it "has only one application" is in that magazine, then we would add a reference something like so;
This SpiderGraph charting has only one application.<ref>"Chester, G. L., "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs", Control Engineering, issue 32, p. 178-180, January 1985.</ref>
It must have references. That is the only really important thing.
You cannot say things like, "Maybe the confusion between a SpiderGraph chart and a Radar chart started because both charts look like a spider web" unless there is a reliable source that makes that connection.
And Wikipedia itself - the Radar article - is not a reliable source.
Best, Chzz ► 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
Is there any chance that you could click on this thing, type in the wiggly-letters and a nickname, and 'talk' to me (via text) there?
If not, it's no bother, and I will answer you on the wiki. I thought I'd try. Cheers! Chzz ► 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I moved some of the older messages from this page into an 'archive' - User talk:GregLChest/Archive 1. I hope that's helpul; if not, it can be undone, of course. Chzz ► 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
...and regarding the email/picture, I believe one of the people with access has replied to you, trying to help sort it out. I don't have access to that system, myself. Hopefully you can sort out the permission by email. Chzz ► 15:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
Ehow is not a 'reliable source'. That's because anyone can edit it. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
Sorry that your edits were blocked by the filter, but we have to disallow links to websites like "Ehow" - it's rather like a science journal refusing anything that cites "MySpace". I hope you understand.
I'm quite happy to try and help you though, if I can. Best, Chzz ► 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 00:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Chzz ► 03:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
...that should help you create your article:
Hope this helps, Shearonink ( talk) 05:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to fix the first references to the Chester article. The Wikipedia software will do the numbering of references automatically, please take a look at
WP:Referencing for beginners.
What I did was take what you placed in your article as [1], looked for that reference down below and then converted it tino a Wikipedia inline-citation, like this:
You had... 1985 G.L. Chester's article: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," (featuring the "SpiderGraph," which was developed in 1981)[1]
I then converted that into...
<ref name ="Chester">Chester, G. L.: ''"Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs,"'' Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985</ref>
and added {{Reflist}} underneath the "References" header which makes the references section look like:
References
1. a b Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985
I found another [1] and converted the second [1] into <ref name = "Chester"/> which automatically numbers the references within the article, so all the places where that [1] appeared now reference the Chester article.
Hope this helps, --
Shearonink (
talk) 06:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 18:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I will try to be in the Wikipedia Editing Help Channel the rest of the day today. I have alerted an administrator (matthewrbowker) who's usually in Help about the various difficulties you've been having on your draft, so hopefully between the three of us we can get your AfC straightened-out. Shearonink ( talk) 23:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SpiderGraph chart. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. There is no need to sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. mabdul 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done some editing to your draft-article, but I think you need to be aware of some issues:
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 08:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 00:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You only are supposed to sign your posts on talk pages, not your work on article-pages. Cheers, Shearonink ( talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article.)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article.)
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article.)
mabdul 12:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
mabdul 13:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 01:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
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!
Shearonink ( talk) 04:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Shearonink ( talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
See
this page at Commons and
your Commons talk page.
Wikimedia Commons is the image repository for the Wikimedia/Wikipedia project. For the moment you should probably concentrate on fixing the remaining issues with
SpiderGraph chart, any possible remaining image issues (Like the required permissions) can be fixed later.
Shearonink (
talk) 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited SpiderGraph chart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Features, Comparing and Decisions ( 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) 10:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited SpiderGraph chart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Method ( 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) 10:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Gregory L. Chester 02:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
==Please Remove {{proposed deletion/dated 27 March 2012}}== and Refer to "Talk:SpiderGraph chart" for Author's "Objection to Deletion" and Response to the concerns mentioned in the 3/27 "Notice of Proposed Deletion" of the WP Article "SpiderGraph chart." Gregory L. Chester 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 00:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
==Please Remove {{proposed deletion/dated 27 March 2012}}== and Refer to "Talk:SpiderGraph chart" for Author's "Objection to Deletion" and Response to the concerns mentioned in the 3/27 "Notice of Proposed Deletion" of the WP Article "SpiderGraph chart." Gregory L. Chester 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 00:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The article SpiderGraph chart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Glrx (
talk) 15:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SpiderGraph chart 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/SpiderGraph chart until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Glrx ( talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 00:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm really busy right now, so I fear that I can't give you a decent response; however, I'll do my best with what time I have. Regarding the deletion of User:GregLChest/SpiderGraph chart, it's not a big deal. Immediately before I deleted it, the page had very little content; aside from a template that asked for the page to be deleted, its entire contents were as follows:
#REDIRECT SpiderGraph chart
It was a redirect page, which is a page having nothing except code that tells our software to take you to a different page when you go to the redirect page. By the time that I found it, the "target page" (the one to which you're sent when you try to go to a redirect page), SpiderGraph, had already been deleted. Because there's no reason to be redirected to a deleted or otherwise nonexistent page, our speedy deletion policy permits the immediate deletion of pages that redirect to nonexistent pages. Therefore, nothing I deleted was of any substantial import at all. For your situation, the big issue is the deletion of the SpiderGraph article. I can't help you with that now, but I'll see what I can do. Nyttend ( talk) 23:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say. What's happened has probably been both shocking and bewildering, and I'm sorry for that.
You've had a long experience with the article. There were several drafts while it was at AfC, and those editors tried to point out the trouble spots. The article was eventually accepted, but that put the article into WP article space where other editors could view it. That's were I came along. I didn't think the article was appropriate for WP, so I propose deleting it (which is called a "prod").
When an article is proposed for deletion, a single editor can stop the proposal by deleting the prod in the article. You clearly objected, so I removed the prod. I still didn't think the article was appropriate, so I nominated the article for deletion (called "AfD"). AfD is analogous to AfC: AfC is a way to bring articles in, and AfD is the way to take them out.
The SG article wasn't just deleted out of the blue. It was deleted as the result of a well-defined process. The SG article actually got an extended review.
The usual process at AfD is a week-long debate. Any editor gets to comment the article during the week. The editors give reasons for keeping or deleting the article (or some other options). At the end of the week, an unbiased admin examines the debate and decides what to do. Normally, the keep or delete decision is made after one week. After the week was up, there were only a couple comments, so an unbiased admin relisted (extended) the debate period for another week. Some more comments arrived. Then a second unbiased admin looked at the discussion and decided to let the debate run for another week. By the end of the third week, the comments were something like 10 to your 1 to delete the article. The reviewing admin must be unbiased. Also, he doesn't just count votes. He looks at the comments, weighs them, and decides which side has the better position. A majority votes does not rule. The admin, after that review, decided to delete the article.
Reviewing editors look for particular kinds of sources. Articles require several independent secondary sources that show the article's subject is notable. Narrow trade publications don't carry much weight; general publication carry more weight. Self-published works, press releases, company websites, and even patents are not independent of the subject. Consequently, those sources carry little to no weight. Basically, notability is a measure that a section of the public has taken notice of the subject of the article. Some articles, such as the one you wrote about the SpiderGraph, are consider primary sources -- they offer the first description. Primary sources are also discounted because WP is not evaluate a subject. Instead, WP waits for outside authors to publish sources that survey the developments in a field and pass judgment on what is important. That's a secondary source, and that is what feeds WP articles. What we needed to see were several articles in reliable sources that compared SpiderGraphs to other charts. We didn't find, and you didn't provide, those sources.
Many of your complaints were that you could prove a SG had certain features. That doesn't work because WP doesn't allow editors (they are called editors and not authors) to do original research or to synthesize new material from other sources. It's an important rule. It means that even non-technical editors can verify statements in WP by just going to the cited source.
The reason the vote was so one sided is that the other editors understood the requirements. The requirements are often relayed in short codewords such as WP:RS and WP:N that may be difficult to digest. By the way, when an editor says WP:TL;DR doesn't mean the text was not read; it means the editor thought the text was too verbose and poorly focused.
Sadly, the debate became a bit contentious. I understand the reasons why that happened, but I don't know what to say about it. WP editing can be abrupt, but we ask editors not to take it personally, and we hope that other editors don't either. You were claiming that other editors were not understanding you, but I think those editors believed you were not understanding them. It may be that a few did not understand, but out of ten editors, none supported your view. That's significant.
You've commented that some editors have not responded to your inquiries. They actually have, but one custom is to respond to a question where the question is written -- that way the whole conversation is in one place. User:Shearonink responded to your question here on the same day.
I hope the above explains what happened. If you want a copy of your article to put in user space, I think any admin would be willing to do that for you. I think Mabdul identified an appropriate version here.