User talk:Sintaku/Archives/2014/February

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi,

You left a decline notice stating submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. I have included 3rd party/independent sources (for example inc.com, eKomi) which show the company's profile and the content it is referring to. What else can I add or do to make the content notable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Wrist-Band.com

Thanks

Maximaracer 95 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not independent or reliable, anyone could have written those review. Something independent and reliable would be for example The Times newspaper, avoid using tabloid newspapers if possible. Look at WP:V and WP:Reliability for more information on sources. Also company profiles don't count. By independent it means the company should have nothing to do with it.

The sources and why they are not independent or reliable:

• Inc profile, is made by the company, or with information about it. Nothing notable in there.
• The company is paying eKomi and Shopper Approved to get in touch with customers for reviews.
• Custom Lanyards is a link to where you can buy the product.
• Wikilink to Livestrong Wristbands, wikilinks cannot be used as sources.

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

can you kindly explain why you consider the entry to be promotional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Entando#Added_reference_links_for_notability

No changes were made after EagerToddler39's review (if not add more sources for third party validation as required) who did not mark the entry as promotional.

Thanks

93.45.80.51 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Gwen93.45.80.51 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No inline citations to backup your claims, and it doesn't show any notability on the software. Regarding advertising, phrases like "special attention", "in a single solution", "has been upgraded to the latest version", etc...

You require independent reliable sources, look at WP:V and use inline citation, look at WP:CS.

Also keep the tone of the article neutral, look at WP:NPOV.

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sintaku,

Thanks for the review and comment! Could you please help me understand what makes the difference between a neutral article and an advert? Should I just add more third-party sources? I'm really confused because I can see numerous pages like these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoCAD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Word

that could be easily seen as advertisements... There are plenty of links to the creator in all of them. I admit they have more third-party sources, so is this the only problem I should fix in mine? In any case, even if these pages have third-party sources don't they work as adverts in people's mind? Someone can read all the features about their new releases and get links to their official pages... So the companies get a direct benefit from the article. Is this wrong? I have been a student working with ODEON in the past and now I felt I could write something, not from an advertising point of view, but because the software is judged as one of the unique products that contributed significantly in the science of acoustics and its applications to buildings.

So if other parts in the article need to be fixed - except from the sources - could you please specify? I feel that the comment "Reads like an advert for the company" sounds very general.

Thanks and I really appreciate your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeAcoust (talk • contribs) 09:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a second read it seems to be fine on the advertising side, however it still needs reliable independent sources. Not ones from the company/organisation/project or its affiliates. And most of your sources are from the company itself. Also a lot of the content in there is unsourced, where do you get that information from? Look at WP:OWN ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 12:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the fast response! I'll try to improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeAcoust (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sintaku -- As an interested observer, I am not quite sure why Frost is not notable. Elliott Wave Theory is a major part of technical analysis. Virtually every trader in the financial markets uses technical analysis, and a large portion of them use Elliott. Frost was one of the first people to properly explain Elliott and, along with Robert Prechter, made it accessible to the masses. If there are other issues with the article, that is different, but Frost is probably more notable than a large percentage of the bios on Wiki. If you are rejecting due to some sort of outmoded and biased view against technical analysis or Elliott Wave in general, then you have nothing to stand on. I am not a fan of the stuff that user has been trying to put up, but it is a miscarriage of justice that there is no article on Frost. I just don't have the time or know enough about him to do it myself.Sposer (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference I'm putting a link to the page Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/A.J._Frost_(Alfred_John_Frost).

If you read WP:BIO everything is there. The article was declined by me because it did not have substantial independent reliable sources. The majority of the sources were things writting by A.J. Frost, therefore not independent. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 00:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I guess I misread. Apologies. I guess Glennpa is trying to show notability by the fact that he wrote a lot. I think Frost belongs, but I will leave it up to somebody that knows much more about the man than me to improve the article. Thanks.Sposer (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please explain why you put a "third-party" tag on the Walter Bayes article ? Many thanks14GTR (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are by pages showing his work (mainly the Imperial War Museum links). The smartest thing would be to look at all the sources used for this article [1] by the Tate which provides many reliable third-party sources. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have referenced the article as best as I can. I have added some picture to make my work little bit interesting and authentic. I will add more information if available in near future. Thank you for yr advice.

Sincerely, Areshhhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areshhhh (talk • contribs) 03:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it is for the article Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Gopal_Das_Shrestha, I noticed you'd removed the declined submissions and the comments. It is practise not to remove them. As it helps identify if the article has fixed those issues or not. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 11:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Sintaku. I am working on it. Also, I would like at the end to submit a sidebar of "vital statistics" & a photo.

Roanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneyraymond (talk • contribs) 16:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Diana_W._Bianchi_(medical_geneticist). I've linked it so it is easier to find. It is badly formatted, do you know how to use the wiki formatting? I've added the code to display references. You need to put the references you've listed at the bottom within the actual text like you have done for 4 of the references. First sort out the wiki style then find some third party references (I think you might have enough, but without inline citations I won't know). ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 16:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on the page. Thank you for your help so far! Concerned I may be using reference #1 too many times. Shall I get more references for those statements. Sydneyraymond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydneyraymond (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The more the better. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making considerable progress. Two questions: 1) On a reference that is a merely a hyperlink, what is the coding to hide the URL so that only the text I type shows instead? I read the instructions but I'm still not getting what I want.

2) I should have everything uploaded tomorrow. Is there any danger that anyone else is creating a page on this person? I have done searches, beforehand of course, and as I've been working, and I see no one has. I want to be sure. Will my article be considered the definitive one, given that I address all your concerns?

Thank you for your kind help thus far. Sydneyraymond Sydneyraymond (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sinaku. I fixed the coding. Just curious, does the article go back in the queue, or do you review it again? 67.208.181.82 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Sydneyraymond[reply]

You need to submit it again. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very busy individual mr sinteku. One who seems to be throwing your weight about a bit eh? Hmmmm!What happened to wikipedia's policy on good faith and being kind and gentle to new comers?Cowhen1966 (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure as to what you are talking about. Could you please elaborate? ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 01:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me remind you or shall I say, let me refresh you're memory. We first met on the live chat at which time you, Howicus and Huon were extremely brash and rude. It is therefore no surprise that you have decided to wade in on a war that involves your partner Howicus. I have not been on Wikipedia for more than 3 weeks but since being autoconfirmed, I have done nothing else but answer accusations and derrogatory atatements from you on the live chat. The aim of Wikipedia is to get competent editors like me who write for a hobby to contribute to this very special and rich resource. Unfortunately, people like yourselves drive so many promising and quality editors away and that goes against Wikipedia's code of good practice. I believe it is people like you who allow shoddy work in terms of grammar, cohesion and encyclopaedic style etc. to slip through the net while you pick on things that are neither libelous or harmful to Wikipedia. I suggest you re-look at the word libelous and contentious. Try the Oxford dictionary. I will also look carefully at your work that is if you are actually working that is? RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have only been trying to help you edit your article, and have given you a lot of advice in how to do so. I did not say anything wrong or accuse or be rude to you on live chat. I am not driving you away. I always welcome new editors. I don't allow or disallow anything regarding grammar, wikipedia is editable by everyone, I am merely contributing to it. I wish you all the best with your edits. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not helped. Infact, you have been very unprofessional. Wgolf has helped, Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowhen1966 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC) This is unsigned because I had not finished! So, as I was saying, you have not helped at all. Slapping boxes on people's articles is not help! What I lack in terms of grammar, cohesion, etc. somebody compensates with referencing. Which is easier to do? help edit when you can, which is what you should be doing, or slap a box on a page? You have only adopted this tone because everything is out in the open but prior to this it was pure sarcasm and a whole lot of nastiness. There is a difference between contributing within the boundaries and guidelines that Wikipedia has and simply harrassing and vandalising somebody's article. It is not for you to decide what constitutes a reliable source. A source is independent when it is quoted as a secondary or tertiary source other than the primary source. I suggest you leave this to the administrators because you and i clearly have a different interpretation of what is reliable, independent, libelous and contentious. From here on, let's all do the job the way we deem it fit as budding editors who may one day aspire to do great work for Wikipedia. I hope you do not take it personal and remove boxes that I place on your work because you just want to be juvenile. I hope we can be big boys about this and take as much as we give!Cowhen1966 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own any of the work on Wikipedia, it becomes public once I click the save button. I am not going against you, and have no interest in Cecil_Jay_Roberts. The biggest issue with the article is WP:RS, please read that. The sources need to be reliable and independent. Also please read WP:BLP. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 02:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guidelines: I suggest yo go and read that too!Cowhen1966 (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Use[reply]