>>>>I can speak Bulgarian and know what that word means in my language, I will find a reference then from a translating website.[[Special:Contributions/41.132.116.116|41.132.116.116]] ([[User talk:41.132.116.116|talk]]) 13:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
>>>>I can speak Bulgarian and know what that word means in my language, I will find a reference then from a translating website.[[Special:Contributions/41.132.116.116|41.132.116.116]] ([[User talk:41.132.116.116|talk]]) 13:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
== cheshire ==
this is not a biased statement, it is a factual one according to income, ntw, check out colts neck,nj page, if cheshire cannot be accurately described then neither should it. thank you
Please relook at the entire change by Ruth Jarman Shiraishi. "She" has added names of his children, the part you looked at and Hobbies and family life Jarman was an adventurer and avid traveller. Taking yearly vacations to Hawaii, Jarman began a legacy of activity in Hawaii by his son John Henry Jarman II. Jarman was an avid fisherman and loved the outdoors. He often went fly fishing with his son Steve Jarman and always had a few dogs around to keep him company. He was the dignified, intelligent and chivalrous. And more. Please also look at my recent change at List of United States Representatives from Oklahoma. Not a n00b, and know how to edit, thanks. 75.204.32.67 (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Jarman Shiraishi (talk·contribs) has made one edit - [1] - to John Jarman. As there are no references for it, it isn't a very useful edit. Is that what you were asking me about? Do you have a question, or something you'd like me to do?
Hi Chzz. I'm having trouble finding this article that I created and would appreciate your help not only finding it but getting it accepted. Can you please help me? Cheers Bern Bernie M Smith (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 (backtothebay) shows the TV show cast - again, it isn't an article about the person - it's just a ultra-brief mention
Ref 5, theatricalia.com doesn't seem an RS either - and in fact, when I tried the link, there was no page there.
Ref 6, arts-archive - again, just a listing entry
Ref 7 - actu8.com.au - might be OK to use for some neutral basic facts but because he works for the company, it doesn't help show notability - it's a primary source, not independent
Ref 8...see note at the end of this
Ref 9, the 'adviser' newspaper thing, looks self-written; like a blog-type entry; "Posted by The Adviser from Shepparton" - doesn't look like a good reference - although, if you are not sure, you could ask on the noticeboard WP:RSN
...for some reason - probably my dodgy internet connection - I can't open refs 1 and 8 at this time.
However, I hope the above will be enough to show you the problem...that, currently, it simply doesn't show why the person is notable. There isn't the significant coverage in references that are independent.
We'd need, for example, several newspaper articles that are actually specifically about the individual.
Thanks for the response... I appreciate your detail.
There are at least five items in various newspapers which would probably meet the notability for criteria but the editors have chosen not to post online. They are profile pieces like the Shepparton Adviser which you had trouble accessing. Can you please try this link and see if it works for you? http://sheppartonadviser.ezyzine.com/Public/Template2/ThreadView.aspx?tid=16670
I don't know how to get around the print vs e-posted issue... any ideas?
References do not have to be online. The idea is, something the reader can check - verify. So, books and newspapers (which are not on the internet) are perfectly acceptable - as long as you give enough details so that someone could, if they want, get a copy. So - for a paper, you'd put the title of the paper, the publisher, location (city), date, page number, title of the article, author. That sort of thing.
If you say that a fact is referenced to something offline, then mostly we "assume good faith" and believe you. Often, people will actually check - quite a few Wikipedians have access to large libraries, and can get copies of all kinds of things.
Thanks Chzz - I've also done a little further surfing and have found some further online resoruces but am unsure how to use them and construct this page. Here are the one of interest which confirm/relate the details on Roberts. Can you please advise me on what to do next? If you don't have time then maybe there is someone else you could refer me to?
That looks like it'd work, yes; you need to add those, as 'inline references' to facts in the article. I'll add help on how, on your user talk page. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Help with David Barret (muscian) site
Not sure how to use this page. Maybe I'm adding on to someone else's post. Not sure. Am I supposed to put this in the context of some HTML to make it my own post? It would be nice if I had time to edit my article, but this experience of just talking to other Wikipedians is enough for today. Thanks for all your help. I'll chip away. This is today's chip and I have a feeling I'm doing it wrong.
Anne Marie Jackson (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I came back and realized that all I have to do is add my own heading. Today's discovery. (Seems odd that "Edit Summary" is exposed for conversations in the background of site building.)[reply]
Nice to see you're learning so quick. You could also have clicked the little plus-sign (+) at the top of the page, next to 'edit' - that creates a new section at the end of pages.
Pretty much everything on Wikipedia is exposed; that is one of the things that takes some getting used-to. For example, I'm sure some of my talk page stalkers will read this!
Chipping away is a great approach.
Possibly, editing a few other articles a bit might be a good idea; there is always plenty to do. One place to find things is WP:CLEANUP.
Dear sir. Why do you call my change of the Kleina article vandalism? It names two bakeries in the country which sell the pastry and the resource is a travel book. Kleinur can be bought in almost every bakery and convenience store, so this makes the article seem like an advertisement for two single bakeries.
You removed a referenced fact, and replaced it with the text, You can buy kleinur in almost every bakery and convenience store in Iceland - with no reference.
I have a question for the editor Chzz. You declined my article for creation on Innotrac on January 22. I am still farily new to Wikipedia (this is my first article), and am trying to understand the process/rules. I am working on your suggestions, but wanted to understand the best way to meet the requirements. I've looked at several other similar articles posted and they read a lot like mine, so I'm not sure where I'm missing it. Please let me know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolanda Kokayi (talk • contribs) 18:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
There are lots of 'bad' articles on Wikipedia - it is a 'work in progress'. Some were made a long time ago, and the standards change; others maybe 'slip through the net'. However, that doesn't make a valid reason to add more; it simply means that they need fixing or deleting. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.
For good examples to consider, see WP:FA and WP:GA - any of those.
One of the core values of Wikipedia is 'verifiability' - that means, the person reading the article should be able to 'check the facts' in the references provided.
As a simple example, the article says "During the last half of 1999, the company began distributing DSL equipment for BellSouth". Where can we check that fact is true?
If someone later edited the page, and changed that from "Bellsouth" ro some other name, we'd have no way of telling which was 'correct'.
Chzz, thank you for your feedback? Using your example about the "Bellsouth" example, would a company's annual report suffice as a reference? It is a legal document and filed with the SEC. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolanda Kokayi (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For a straight fact like that, yes, that source would be OK however, primary sources must be used with great care; they cannot be used for any non-neutral claims. For example, such a source could not be used for the claim it offers a suite of services that allows a company to support their multi-channel initiatives.
Also, the article should be mostly based on secondary, independent sources.
Sorry, I forgot to sign my latest question. Here it is again. Chzz, thank you for your feedback. Using your example about the "Bellsouth" example, would a company's annual report suffice as a reference? It is a legal document and filed with the SEC. Thanks.
Upon further checking, I agree it could probably have been CSD'd as an ad; however the PROD might have worked as well.
Unfortunately, as of now, that is technically a bit of a problem; because CSD doesn't apply to things that've been PRODded;
If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deletedWP:CSD
Also, the user (as an IP) was actually permitted to remove the PROD - anyone can remove them - so the warning on User talk:188.40.86.24 isn't quite right;
If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faithWP:PROD
Sadly, it'd really now have to go to AfD, unless some admin decides WP:NORULES applies.
{{adminhelp|Please review the above; I used a PROD, which was removed, but I'm not sure if CSD applies; I don't like to waste time at AfD for this stuff, but it might be necessary - please let me know your thoughts.}}
Done. I think both G11 and A7 (as the term essentially represented both a service and a company) applied. If facebook and twitter do indeed use the service (from that URL or from others) then the term may catch on and become notable or a dicdef... but per we can't predict when/if that will happen. Good catch, both of you. 711:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 7. I think that is a valid and sensible use of IAR, to avoid pointless hassles just for the sake of procedure. Good choice. Chzz ► 11:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that wasn't technically IAR... The comment you made above is about not CSDing an article that has been kept via a prior deletion discussion is true, but a PROD is not a deletion discussion. CSD tag was okay. 711:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - I see what you mean. I'd previously believed that, if something had survived PROD, it couldn't be speedied. But yes - the phrase "deletion discussion" would seem to indicate AfD only, and not PROD. However, a seemingly contradictiory statement in WP:DEPROD says, If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - which seems to imply CSD is not appropriate after PROD. Chzz ► 12:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I think it is one of those areas where, if we try to make the "rules" too explicit, we end up with CREEP; "You can do this, except for that, unless the other thing happened, but only on a Tuesday" and so forth. Common sense should override all that. Chzz ► 12:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yo
Yo, I understand the verifiability issue, but that is too totally messed up in wikipedia - as a matter of fact, from past experience and noting these things, I can confidently say that wikipedia is a corrupt place where admins themselves regularly push POV and stuff like that. I like wikipedia, but it has now reached such a level that it is hard to have respect for it anymore. Another example is the Bulgar issue - there exists SO much strong evidence clearly showing that most probably they were not Turkic, but Iranic, even DNA evidence, I mean come on, but admins still ignore all the sources and evidence, without bothering to research on the topic themselves (like the Bulgars) and are just following blindly other admins, thinking that becuase he is an admin he must be right and thus supports him, without first thinking himself and researching the topic himself. I hope you are aware as an admin (I assume you are an admin) of the corruption happening in wikipedia - it is now close to being out of control.
And for the record, more pages are better, you say it is not better if the info is wrong etc etc, but look at the album page - how can it be wrong - it lists the tracks - I meant more pages that have little chance of containing wrong info (like the album page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.116.116 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying - I mean that; it's good to discuss things.
No, I'm not an admin.
Yes, there are a hell of a lot of things wrong with Wikipedia - but I still love it. Let's try to fix the wrong stuff.
I agree the article might be useful. If I didn't, I'd have removed any blatant junk, or listed it for deletion. However, the tag serves an important purpose - it categorizes the page, so that other people can find it and fix it. It flags up the problem. That really does help get things fixed. There's a truly huge backlog of them, of course - but, it helps.
If a user does some kind of query of 'unreferenced articles about South African rock' or whatever, they'd find it.
You say we don't need a reference for a track list; I absolutely disagree. I've just spent a few hours removing vandalism. If I come across that article, and someone has changed all the track names, how can I tell if it is a valid edit? It's very difficult - and Wikipedia is constantly under attack from vandals; right now, as I type, there are about 100 edits per minute, and about 10 of those are being reverted. (Feel free to have a look what I've been doing - Special:Contributions/Chzz) >>>ok you are right about that, I just cant understand why someone would go do vandalism like change the tracks, disappointing that you get people like that.
The policies and guidelines have been decided through much discussion - and WP:V is very fundamental. If you have ideas about how to improve things, then I suggest WP:PUMP - there is always room for improvement.
P.S. I will try to find references, but I can't right now; a very brief Google search though indicates the album was released in 2002, not 2003. So, yeah; that's why we need refs. See [2][3]. Chzz ► 12:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC) >>>wow, I am more aware of the problem about refs now, you're right, thanks, all the best, cheers!41.132.116.116 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a biased statement, it is a factual one according to income, ntw, check out colts neck,nj page, if cheshire cannot be accurately described then neither should it. thank you
