Jump to content

User talk:Oo7565: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 11d) to User talk:Oo7565/Archive 1.
Mmillo (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 30: Line 30:


sure of course I can but the thing. I think for the most part we try to get more then one source for article if that cant happend then the one source is fine. but the source is in greek had to verify the info thats in the article. also if you can in the sources section tell us where the source is from that would help. if you want you can make the changes and want to resumbit it then i or someone else review it and it will go from there. feel free to ask me any other questions[[User:Oo7565|Oo7565]] ([[User talk:Oo7565#top|talk]]) 16:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
sure of course I can but the thing. I think for the most part we try to get more then one source for article if that cant happend then the one source is fine. but the source is in greek had to verify the info thats in the article. also if you can in the sources section tell us where the source is from that would help. if you want you can make the changes and want to resumbit it then i or someone else review it and it will go from there. feel free to ask me any other questions[[User:Oo7565|Oo7565]] ([[User talk:Oo7565#top|talk]]) 16:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

==Calzavara S.p.a==
Hello Oo7565!
I understand that you think that the article doesn't meet the criteria to be encyclopedic. I was trying to create an institutional page for an Italian company that is well known over here. I added a paragraph on their most important feature, and hopefully this will change your mind.
If not, please tell me how should I improve the article so it can be considered encyclopedic!
Than You for the help!
[[User:Mmillo|Mmillo]] ([[User talk:Mmillo|talk]]) 14:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:53, 12 September 2011

Rich Hickey

You PRODded this as "No evidence of notability, no third-party refs", despite the fact that it was based on an article about the person in the Dictionary of National Biography. That is a thoroughly reliable third party source, and generally recognised as giving notability. If you do not understand how to interpret information about sources in a WP article, perhaps you should step back from PRODding in areas where you are not familiar with the sources used. PamD (talk) 07:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Tooway

Hello Oo7565. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Tooway, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 01:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd like to know if you whether or not you declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BetaShares because it was tagged as unreferenced. It in fact had 5 working references. I am speaking to the author via IRC, and would appreciate your input.  Hazard-SJ  ±  05:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah I did also it might be a good idea to put where the sources are from because how they read right now they kinda seem like they come the company itself.( I know they dont they come from outside sources which is great and how it should be.) I would so say you may want to look at WP:corp because as it is written right now it looks like it may fail WP:corp right now as well. feel free to ask me any other questions.Oo7565 (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Orlandos

Hello! I am the could/would-be-creator of the article Ioannis Orlandos. You diclined its creation for that reason:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept unsourced suggestions or sources that are not reliable per the verifiability policy. Please cite reliable, third-party sources with your suggestions. Third party sources are needed so the information can be verified and to establish the notability of the topic.

I must inform you that there is one source in the bottom and also that the whole article is written with data from only this source. Can you reconsider it please? Thank you!--46.246.166.248 (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. The source is reliable because is the cite of the greek parliament. Thanks!--46.246.166.248 (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sure of course I can but the thing. I think for the most part we try to get more then one source for article if that cant happend then the one source is fine. but the source is in greek had to verify the info thats in the article. also if you can in the sources section tell us where the source is from that would help. if you want you can make the changes and want to resumbit it then i or someone else review it and it will go from there. feel free to ask me any other questionsOo7565 (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calzavara S.p.a

Hello Oo7565! I understand that you think that the article doesn't meet the criteria to be encyclopedic. I was trying to create an institutional page for an Italian company that is well known over here. I added a paragraph on their most important feature, and hopefully this will change your mind. If not, please tell me how should I improve the article so it can be considered encyclopedic! Than You for the help! Mmillo (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]