Jump to content

User talk:Eclipsed: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dcj3616 (talk | contribs)
97 edits
10squared (talk | contribs)
111 edits
No edit summary
Line 152: Line 152:


[[Special:Contributions/199.229.226.170|199.229.226.170]] ([[User talk:199.229.226.170|talk]]) 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/199.229.226.170|199.229.226.170]] ([[User talk:199.229.226.170|talk]]) 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

== 13:20:16, 30 June 2015 review of submission by 10squared ==
{{Lafc|username=10squared|ts=13:20:16, 30 June 2015|declined=Draft:Electric_Republic}}


[[User:10squared|10squared]] ([[User talk:10squared|talk]]) 13:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:20, 30 June 2015

I edit ON SPEC


.

Hey Eclipse, when I was doing some research to update the mock trial page, I realized the organization running the biggest mock trial program in the country (and the world) does not have a Wikipedia page. I can link to that but that info is only available to members of the national mock trial association. Given the influence they have on a topic already in Wikipedia, and the coverage of the organization (that I provided links to) in national publications like the Atlantic or the Huffington Post article written by an ex-US Senator, this seems like a significant oversight. The mock trial program they run is so large, there are literally hundreds of references to them in local CA newspapers which I would be happy to link to. And other editors are even using their material for reference in Wikipedia- which would be another significant reason to have a page for them.

I do not think there is any issue with this organization being "notable" enough for a Wikipedia article. Please let me know if there are any particular changes you think I should make to get an article up.

Thanks,

Lawandhistory13

If you have added new references that are both independent of the subject and from reliable sources and significantly about the subject, then please resubmit the draft and another reviewer will take a look. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 06:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eclipse, I have not been able to log into my account. I tried to change the password, but its not working. my username is Juliaaltagracia. thanks.

22:24:17, 24 June 2015 review of submission by Aabdel96


Hello, First Screen Junkies is a very popular and notorious Youtube channel and they have their own Wikipedia page, and yet Wikipedia is refusing to make an entry for MovieFights even though Screen Junkies created the show. There is a Wikipedia Page for almost every single TV show and actor, why is Movie Fights any different? Why is the topic not notable or worthy to be in an encyclopedia? I would just like to clarify as to why this topic is being rejected? You say that the topic's nobility is in question and yet the topic is a show just like any other show that is featured on Wikipedia. Thanks Again.

Aabdel96 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To show notability, Wikipedia relies on independent and reliable references that significantly discuss the topic. The movie fights draft is currently lacking enough reliable independent sources that significantly discuss the topic. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 06:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

01:32:36, 26 June 2015 review of submission by Dcj3616


When I first submitted a new article on Jorgen Dreyer, I had only one reference. I now have 7, plus many photos. I hope this now justifies Dreyer as substantial.Dcj3616 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Dcj3616 (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The kchistory.org reference is good, because it is extensively about Dreyer and from a reliable source. A few more references like that would be very good. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am now up to 15 refs, including several newspapers. Dcj3616 (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:15, 26 June 2015 review of submission by Bojidar.Popov


Hello Eclipsed,

I was wondering, is there a measurable (quantitative) criteria of what you consider reliable and independent source (assuming that's the problem with my draft). I've read the guidelines and the principals are clear, but when it comes to application(?).

I feel stuck, any advice would be appreciated

Bojidar Popov

Bojidar.Popov (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best is to read through Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. That page has lots of information that is useful. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:01, 26 June 2015 review of submission by 92.65.74.100


Hello,

I would like to know what makes the page as an advertisement as I didn't give lots of details about Ohpen and based all I know on what I read on the external links I mentioned. Moreover, to build the page i checked how the one from coca-cola has been made (which I know is really strange), but that's also the reason why I don't understand why they have been accepted and my page refused...

Thanks in advance for the help Eclipsed :)

Caroline


92.65.74.100 (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here is an example of flowery, marketing/advertising text from the draft:
Ohpen is the first cloud banking software provider with all production data of its clients in the cloud. It is an IT-banking software development company. Since its creation, Ohpen’s primary business is to design, develop and service an all-in-one, integrated, multi-lingual and multi-devices cloud banking platform for the operation, administration, reporting and distribution of mutual funds and savings accounts, primarily serving mutual fund managers, investment managers (IM), asset managers (AM) and insurance companies.
Here is a more neutral and encyclopedic way to say the same thing:
Ohpen is an IT-banking software development company.  The company runs a cloud banking platform.

Hope that helps. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 19:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Eclipsed, Ok i do understand your point but in my point of view, the only problem is the word "first" because it seems that i want to say that is the best. but my goal is just want to inform wikipedia users that now in the fintech world, banks are disrupted by many small start-ups and Ohpen is just the first one who has disrupted the cloud banking software by being the first one to store all the data of its client in the cloud. but there is lots of others "first" start-ups who do others things like for example: the first company to use the robo-advisors, or another one who was the first to get to use the bitcoin as the main currency etc etc.

I will work on the article again because i spent hours working on it and i dont want it to be for nothing....

So please if you have other comments about what to improve, please let me know :)

Have a great day,

Caroline Carolinemunier (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:36, 27 June 2015 review of submission by Laboratoryz


Laboratoryz (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Reviewer: How long have you studied on exogenous nucleic acids. I have done research on them since 1975. I have tested that cancer is an infecious disease and cancer is transferred by tumor RNA. This has identified that infectious RNA fragment is a molecular pathogen.

Like most humans on this planet,I have never studied exogenous nucleic acids. That's why Wikipedia relies on using reliable sources to verify information. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matthew Santoro - resubmitted

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I have resubmitted a draft that you left feedback on. I added more references and more content to the draft. I believe that it now shows enough notability to be on Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look. Draft:Matthew Santoro Thanks, Rainbow unicorn (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important note here: Youtube links are not acceptable to show notability, especially when they are simply links to Mr. Santoro's videos (and thus not independent).
I'd suggest this: start over. Forget Everything you know about Mr. Santoro. Start the draft with only content that is verified by reliable and independent references. No youtube links, no links to anything produced by Mr. Santoro. Stick with newspapers, magazines, etc. That will help reviewers more clearly see if Santoro is notable or not according to the wikipedia biography of living persons rules. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:58:02, 28 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by MarcusCheeKJ


I actually created te page because I saw this page. I don't know how the page is a news, and if this page is not accepted, how does the 2011 page be created in the first page. MarcusCheeKJ (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarcusCheeKJ (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the references on 2011 Singapore MRT disruptions, news reports from The Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia. The draft needs reliable references like those. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:03, 28 June 2015 review of submission by 83.238.178.74


Hello there - I don't have much experience in writing Wikipedia articles - I read about references and most of information I am finding about HAWE

  • are sources on webpages already listed in external links
  • are sources from within Poland
  • many of them are in polish language

Is this reliable sources? I should go ahead and fill references with this sources? Thanks for answer Jake


83.238.178.74 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best is to read through Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. That page has lots of information that is useful. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:44:23, 29 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Austinjbollinger


I recently submitted an article called Element 74 and it was denied. I am confused as to why. Is the topic of my article not approved, or my sources? Most of my sources are a local newspaper so I'm not sure how they aren't accepted. Is it one of my sources or all of them?

- Thanks! Austin J Bollinger (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:43, 29 June 2015 review of submission by 199.229.226.170


Could we please get advice on how to make this article look less advertising and more informative on our company. It is important for the company to have an online presence & spot in this encyclopedia.

199.229.226.170 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:16, 30 June 2015 review of submission by 10squared


10squared (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eclipsed&oldid=669330206"