User talk:JBW

List_of_family_offices_in_Switzerland

I have the content of this list created from VSV, the phone book (www.tel.search.ch) and Google. I searched for Family Office. How should I reference this best?

I added the VSV as reference, but do I need to reference the phone book and Google? From the phone book and Google I have only added organisations with a website, where I could be sure that they are family offices. Unfortunately, family offices are not regulated and have only a SRO like VSV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minders1 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 May 2010

Information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be supported by coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Thus, for example, the list includes Beekay Family Office LTD., Zurich under the subheading Multi Family Office. To justify including this entry in the list there should be a reference to some reliable source which tells us that Beekay Family Office LTD is indeed a "Multi Family Office". At present there is none: just the inclusion of the name of the company in the list, and that is all. In principal it is also not sufficient that the company exists and is a "Multi Family Office": there should be enough coverage of it to show that it is notable. However, the amount of notability needed to justify putting an entry on a company in a list is less than the amount needed to justify having an article on the company, so a moderate amount of coverage is likely to be sufficient. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I spend some time to find a better source than http://www.vsv-asg.ch/htm/mitgliederliste.htm (has over 1000 members), where I could find all other organisations as well. Only 4 organisations are regulated by SAAM (I found one more family office). Any ideas how we could proceed? Because it is so difficult to create a list, I think it is valuable to have a list. --Minders1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

The whole issue of list articles is one on which there is considerable disagreement, with some Wikipedians thinking we shouldn't have any at all. Personally I don't go that far, but I do think that there should be evidence of notability: just having a list of pet gerbils because someone interested in pet gerbils has decided to make such a list is not good enough. To indicate notability there must be at least some source cited to justify inclusion of an item on a list. I am just about prepared reluctantly to accept a link to a Wikipedia article about the item in question, provided that article has good sources, although Wikipedia articles are not really reliable sources, and this compromise is not ideal. As far as this particular case is concerned, I know very little about the subject, and do not really know what sources might be available. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the list and checked all the entries against the Federal Commercial Registry, where a comment about the businss is included. I removed the organisations which did not have a clear entry. I think you can remove the "This article does not cite any references or sources." entry. Best wishes, --Minders1 (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Swiss Association of Asset Managers (SAAM)

Minders1 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric Pickles

I think my change should upheld solely on the grounds of style and accuracy. Celebretionary isn't even close to a real word, and confectionery was misspelt. If you must, make it celebratory confectionery, but better still get rid of them both as they are redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.88.188 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you look at the following edits I made you will see that I removed the sentence in question as vandalism. Reverting your change was just a first step. Sorry that a side effect of my editing was that you were given a vandalism warning by the anti-vandalism tool I am using (Huggle). I have now removed that warning. However, it should also be considered that this edit which you made was completely unacceptable. I accept that the later one was well-intentioned, but it did not completely remove the vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your reverts without discussion

Sir, you ignore my edit summaries and just issue threats. Your behavior is uncivilized. I will no longer edit this page, but you've just lost my respect despite numerous barnstars you display proudly. 71.146.87.61 (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you consider my editing in this light. I have read the two notices which were placed on your talk page as a result of my actions, and I cannot see why anything there should be regarded as a threat, but since you have seen it that way I apologise. You do not have to stop editing the article in question. At first sight replacing "Many Hungarians fled to the United States after the Soviet invasion in 1956 and during the Second World War and Holocaust, a significant percentage of whom were Jewish" with "The constant influx of Hungarian immigrants was marked by several waves of sharp increase" did not look constructive, but I am perfectly willing to consider your opinions on this if you would like to explain them. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Electric Mist

It's not vandalism Goodman's first name in this movie is Julie it's not my fault !! See the imdd page : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910905/

Not so good for an anti-vadalism !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.130.143 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. It does help to use edit summaries to explain what is going on. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tantalum Capacitor

Thank you for reviewing the edits I made to the Tantalum Capacitor article. Could you indicate to me why you reverted the changes I made? I added references which I found to be very relative to the article and sourced the current information very well. Thank you for your time --Lindseyrose 09:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindseyrose (talk • contribs)

I thought your edits to the article, all of which consisted of adding links to material from one company, looked like spam. I have looked back at them, and, while the links may be seen as a little promotional, I accept that they do provide useful sources and are not blatant spam, so I have restored them. Thanks for letting me know about your concerns. Incidentally, when you post to a talk page it is best to type 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~) at the end of your post. This is automatically replaced by your signature. Not only does this save you the trouble of typing your signature by hand, but it also gives a links to your talk page etc, which can make it easier for other editors to follow up your contributions. JamesBWatson (talk)

Hello, JBW. You have new messages at Searchmaven's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hmm

Ok, how's this an attack on anyone though, Jesus is a commonly used name and if someone's nickname is Obviously Jesus, I don't see how that can instantly be referenced to the religious figure if nothing in the article brings up any religion. Someone will click on this article and not see anything religious whatsoever, this is like saying if I made a page for a guy named Jesus Gomez, it would be taken down for saying that the religious figure Jesus is of a hispanic decent when he is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryptotinman (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The article contains completely unambiguous attacks on the person it is written about. For example, you refer to him as a "shark", and make childish remarks about his growing up "loving giant penises and guns shaped to resemble penises". So far as I know nobody has suggested that there is any religious issue involved: certainly I haven't. The fact that the person you have attacked has used a nickname with religious connotations is irrelevant. What matters is that you have attacked that person. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam???

Please stop falsely caracterizing as spam that which its not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.13 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you told me what edits you are referring to. At the moment the only edits of mine that I can see have any connection with you concerned addition of external links contrary to the guideline on external links to avoid, but I did not refer to them as spam. if you are referring to something else then please let me know exactly what, so I can judge whether I have made a mistake, and if so correct it. JamesBWatson (talk)

My apologies. I had forgotten that the level 3 template on inappropriate links uses the expression "it is considered spamming". I have now removed that wording. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The official pages of the political party/alliance the article refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.13 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I am leaving those links in place. However, the YouTube link is more questionable. JamesBWatson (talk)

Article on artnet

Hello James,

I am very sorry to hear that the article about artnet does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Of course I am happy to include more footnotes in the various sections, the new annual report was just published - I have to say though that the annual report is probably the most important printed source artnet has; would that be sufficient, or do I need to include various different kinds of sources?

Thank you very much for your help.

Best,

Wasserfloh (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The company's annual report is fine for confirmation of facts about the company. However, there is another issue involved, which is "notability", and for establishing notability the annual report is not useful. The point here is that Wikipedia does not aim to have articles about just anything, but only articles on subjects which have received a certain degree of coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subjects. The company's own annual report is clearly not independent of the company. In fact, since every company will have its annual report, the fact that there is one is no indication of notability at all. To get an indication of the sort of thing that is acceptable as indicating notability I suggest you look at the notability guideline for organizations and companies. It is probably also worth a look at the general notability guideline. The editing history of the article shows that Phil Bridger thinks the business is notable, whereas when I looked at it I didn't. However, that was just over three months ago now, and I do not have a clear memory as to exactly what I found when I searched for evidence of notability, so I cannot comment now on how good the evidence of notability may be that Phil Bridger found. What I can say, however, is that no indication of notability is shown in the article. If you can find suitable sources to show notability then I strongly encourage you to add references to them, otherwise the article may sooner or later be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I understand your point regarding notability. artnet (like Sotheby's, for example) is one of few art companies to be publicly-traded on the stock market (pls. see http://www.skatepress.com/?cat=56). Significant coverage of artnet can be found in many third-party sources, e.g. The Economist, Hoovers, Art in America, The New York Times, etc. Please do not delete the article, I'll revise it by the end of the week; I will include the updated figures from the annual report, as well as independent sources. Wasserfloh (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can do that then that will be great. I have no plan to take any more steps towards deletion at the moment. (Of course that does not mean someone else can't do so, but I wouldn't worry too much: I am saying it is possible, not probable.) It is worth mentioning that any reliable published source is acceptable, though it is easier for other people to check your sources if they are publicly available on line than if they only exist on paper. This does not mean that you can't cite paper sources, but it does help if at least some of them are online. Also, nowadays even such sources as newspaper articles are likely to have online copies too. Let me know if you have any further questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, James, I appreciate it very much! Wasserfloh (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback on Illegal immigration to the United States

You rolled back this edit,[1] which does not appear to be vandalism. It's great that you're patrolling so actively, but please only use the tool for clear cases of vandalism.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I can't now see any reason why I reverted that. It may have been a slip: possibly accidentally clicking the wrong button in Huggle. Thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No prob. I hit the wrong buttons all of the time.   Will Beback  talk  08:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted an apology to the talk page of the editor whose edit I rolled back. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"You're a gentleman and a scholar."   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Purloined User Page

Hi JBW. I seem to have gotten into bit of a scrap with Ofcourseofcourse (talk · contribs), and since you are listed on WP:ASSIST I seek your advice. After I had reverted and warned this editor about his repeated vandalism of the Fernando Alonso article, he created a user page as a copy of mine, complete with barnstars and stuff. I thought that a bit obnoxious, so I blanked it with a suitable comment. My new best friend didn't appreciate that, so with this pithy comment he reverted me. Somehow, the exchange of edit summaries does not encourage my belief in a negotiated solution, but what would be the appropriate way to proceed? Incidentally, I am strongly tempted to PROD Grand Prix Race Manager (Game), which he just created, for crystal balling and lacking notability, but that would probably look too much like a vendetta. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor stepped in, but I would actually still like some advice on how to tackle this kind of situation, should it arise again. Favonian (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several ways of trying to deal with this sort of thing, none of them perfect. I will mention a few of them, and indicate my own feelings about them.

Sometimes if a new user creates a user page which I think is unsuitable but not totally objectionable I simply leave a message on their talk page explaining why it is unsuitable, and leave it at that. If I think the page is a bit more unsuitable then I may blank it, with a suitable edit summary, and perhaps a note on the corresponding talk page explaining that user pages are supposed to be related to contributing to the encyclopedia. This is, of course, what you did. Often this works, but sometimes, as in your case, it doesn't. Copying your page was evidently intended as a form of harassment, but of such a mild form that you probably would not get a lot of support if you tried get serious action taken on it. As far as the dishonest use of barnstars is concerned, a while ago there was a user who repeatedly put a user box making a false claim onto his user page. Several editors, including myself, thought this should be stopped, but the consensus that developed was that the user box system is based on trust, and if it amuses someone to use them to make false claims then they are being pretty silly, but it is harmless, and they should be left to do so. I have thought of raising this at Wikipedia talk:User pages, with a suggestion that Wikipedia:User pages should say that deliberate false claims are not allowed, but I think there is a good chance it would not gain consensus.

On the whole I think usually the way to deal with such incidents is: (1) Remove the silly material, with at least a suitable note in an edit summary, and perhaps one on the user's talk page. This is perhaps more likely to succeed if done by someone other than the "victim" (in this case you). (2) If that doesn't work then leave it. The sort of person who does this is essentially trolling, and fighting them is feeding the troll, which is exactly what they want. In such situations I tend to think that if the person's life is so empty that they have to get amusement by such silliness then it is their problem, not mine.

Of course, if the attempt at harassment goes further, such as making attacks on you, or making objectionable edits to your user page, then that is a different matter, and some further action is reasonable. In this case first address a really polite message to the editor on their user page, explaining nicely why you would like them to stop. If they persist then you can take it further. How does one take it further? Well, there are several options. If the editor in question is here only to be disruptive, and is making very few or no constructive edits, then once a few warnings have been posted to their talk page a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism stands a good chance of getting them blocked. (Note that for this to work, except in cases of an extremely offensive nature, it is essential for there to have been a few warnings, including at least one that explicitly mentions the possibility of being blocked. If you are using the standard templates this means at least a level 3, and preferably a level 4 too.) In more complex cases a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents may be a good idea, but note that you will get more sympathy there if you have been totally reasonable and polite, even to someone who clearly doesn't deserve it, so that it is abundantly clear that the fault is all on one side. However, I would like to emphasise again that in my opinion in mild cases it is often better to simply forget about it. I remind myself that I can make a useful contribution to only a few of the millions of pages on Wikipedia, and what little contribution I can make will be more usefully employed somewhere else than in trying to deal with some child (it usually is a school child) who wants to put a few silly lies on their user page. One final thought: in a case where you do think that you need to follow it up and not just walk away, it can often work out much better if someone else can be involved too, so that it is not just a battle between two people.

I hope my remarks have been of some use and/or interest. You are very welcome to make any comments about what I have said, if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

After I wrote the above it has occurred to me that I should have mentioned one more method of dealing with unacceptable user pages, namely submitting them at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I don't think the present case is serious enough to be worth doing that, but it is certainly one method which is sometimes useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

James, I think there is a substantial difference between the dishonest use of userboxes and barnstars in this case: because Ofcourseofcourse copied the signatures he wasn't just making false claims but falsely attributing opinions to others. That's much worse in my opinion, and I'd be much quicker to block someone for it than 'mere' lying. Indeed, misrepresenting others is explicitly forbidden by WP:TALKNO. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't thought of that distinction, but it is a significant one. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your advise! Keeping cool is certainly important when dealing with this kind of editor, who, as one of his recent actions demonstrates, is turning downright trollish. Still, I wish I could take credit for this response. Think I'll give him a wide berth for the rest of his career. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Following the edit you mention above, if any more attempts to harass you take place then I think it should be followed up, but I think it may be best if you are not the one doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. And thanks for informing the editor about the errors of their ways. Favonian (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The plot thickens! Ofcourseofcourse seems to have stopped editing, but a "new" player has appeared. Issuedealt (talk · contribs) started his career with this bit of trolling on my talk page, whereupon he created a user page strikingly similar to User:Wikipeterproject. The original author of this has been involved in editing Mark Webber, and Issuedealt's third contribution was this characteristically belligerent edit to that very article. Articles about Formula One drives are also Ofcourseofcourse's favorite topic. In my opinion, our friend has now taken a decisive step into the realm of vandalism, and I'm inclined to break my vow and report him to WP:SPI, but I would like to hear your opinion first. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in love with JetLover

Why must you deny our love by reverting his user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.58.174 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you do not understand how close me and him were. Please let our love be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.58.174 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Scarlett (G.I. Joe)

• I’m sorry to bother you, but I thought I should let someone know about a user called Doctorfacts[2]

He/she keeps deleting and adding wrong info on the G.I. Joe Scarlett page and never gives any explanation as to why[3]

To explain what is going on the page as best as I can... he/she keeps stating on the page that there was it implied that Scarlett was romantically involved with the character Duke and then goes on to say that they were together... now that doesn’t make any sense since implied is not an answer and yet in the Relationships section, it says that they were together. There's no source or episode from that cartoon show to prove that. I'm trying to be as accurate as I can on that page and I have listed which episode and have written out the scenes that explain that. But looking at that person's history page, that user goes on to remove any info that says otherwise no matter what and gives no reasons too any of this or that he/she will listen or stop and it seems that very little control goes on over there. Again I'm sorry to be a bother, but I thought someone should know of this. That person just keeps doing that.

This person is out to delete information just because he/she doesn't agree with it.[4]

Something needs to be done. 75.60.208.208 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the edit history of Scarlett (G.I. Joe) since 6 August 2009, when Doctorfacts started editing. It is clear that Doctorfacts has been continually edit warring over that period in an attempt to keep certain claims in the article. I know nothing about Scarlett (G.I. Joe), and so have no opinion at all as to the accuracy of the information Doctorfacts has been adding, but consensus is clearly against Doctorfacts, with several other editors having reverted edits by Doctorfacts. However, as far as I can see no attempt has been made to discuss the issue, which should be a first step. If an editor continues to work against consensus after an attempt has been made to resolve the issue by discussion then further steps can be taken, but discussion should come first. I strongly recommend explaining what you see the problem to be, in as courteous and constructive a manner as possible, on the article's talk page, and also drawing attention to that on Doctorfacts's talk page to make sure that Doctorfacts is aware of it. If after a reasonable time the attempt to resolve the issue by discussion has not made progress then please feel welcome to contact me again. However, I think in the first instance discussion between the editors who are involved in the dispute should be tried. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thank you for your time on this. When it comes to people who knows more of this type of info... I can't find any that are still here who has the power to do something. I don't know how one would go about finding such a person here. When it comes to talking... that user has made no attempt at talking about this about at all and it seems that nobody is there. Well see what happens 75.60.208.208 (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, you should try to start a discussion. If the other editor fails to respond then we can move on from there, but if you are seen not even to have tried to sort it out by discussion then you are less likely to get support if it does turn out to be necessary to go further. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have taken this too at least two other people who have or should know more about this than I do and I have said something on the talk page. How long should I wait until I come back to you if nothing happens? 75.60.208.208 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a note on the user's talk page calling their attention to your comment on the article talk page. If no response comes soon I will add a more specific comment, and we can see where it goes from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, thank you. Also, I should let you know that I'm using DSL 2wire and it has sometimes cut out on me and when I get back online I am force to have a different IP address. So if you see someone talking to you about this later today, the next or a few days from now with a different IP address, it will of course be me. 75.60.208.208 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You could, of course, register an account. You don't have to, but it helps in several ways, including avoiding the problem you have just mentioned, and providing a fixed place (your user talk page) for other editors to get in touch with you. Another point is that some editors tend to take anonymous editors less seriously than named ones. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do, probably because many vandals and other unconstructive editors edit anonymously. If you do decide to register, let me know what your user name is. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's me, 75.60.208.208. I now of course have one. Before I did get an account I had to re-edit that user once again on both of those pages. That person made those edits on at 17:28, 12 May 2010, 17:29 and then at 18:54.[5] You said something to that user at 17:53... if this keeps going? NamelessConsular (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well I left another message on the talk page that says, if someone can explain this implied thing (episode(s) listed and scene(s) written out) that doesn't exaggerate or speculate, then that would be ok. As of right now, nothing has happen on those pages since I re-edited... but that person could come back in a few minutes, days, weeks and it will start all over again. But we'll see what happens. NamelessConsular (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well it seems that this person has ignored any type of discussion on this matter and they're just going to do what he or she wants. I don't know what else to do. Like I said, anybody who has more info on this hasn’t been here in weeks, months or almost a year or doesn’t care. The only thing else I can do is to just keep going on with this edit war, and those like this, just don’t end. I know a person must be given a warring before there blocked and I am of course no administrator, but it seems that the only thing to do is to either protect the page where only people like you can edit it for however long pages are protected or… block the person (a warring or two first of course). NamelessConsular (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I really need your help... there's no reasonable solution to this edit war. I have done everything I can do. I now need your help with this. NamelessConsular (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think that there is more scope for discussion. If you have good reasons for the changes you have made then you ought to be able to explain those reasons on the article's talk page. In the meanwhile I have given Doctorfacts a message warning about edit warring, and inviting discussion. If you both explain your reasons there then there may be hope for resolution. If one of you shows willing to discuss and the other doesn't then unfortunately other methods may have to be used. You have certainly made a start at discussing the matter: for the moment let's see how it goes from there. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well you know... it seemed as if for a second or two... I was going to be able to talk with this person about it... well that didn't last long because he/she doesn't care about the facts or the facts that this person claims to know. That person wrote on the Scarlett page that she and the character Duke kissed and that never happen in the show. That person edited that out of their, but that user still refuses to have anything that adds to that section of the page or anything that says otherwise. I don't see this ending in a discussion. That page needs to be kept an eye on. That user could come back in a month or 2 and just keep this unexplainable editing because that's what this user has done before. If that person just edits back to the way he/she wants again sometime in the next few minutes, hours, days or weeks... what then? NamelessConsular (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• User Doctorfacts has ignored your warring and gave another unexplainable edit.[6][7]. I knew that this wasn't going to end in a discussion. That person is not going to stop even if someone like you warns them. The only thing there is to do, is to block the person. NamelessConsular (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• "If this does not work I recommend that you do not revert the next edit by Doctorfacts, as you could be in danger of being seen to be edit warring yourself, but feel welcome to put a note on my talk page, and I will move on from there."

Very well, if that happens I will of course come to you first. I won't revert. To let you know, I'm still trying to find people here who have more info on this than I do. NamelessConsular (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Coupe utility

Im only changing it to state what it actually is wich is a coupe utilty not a pick§up truck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.202.169 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

--Arain11 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)excuse me im sorry for trying to be helpful but u know what nobody evan likes wikipedia so u should be glad im on and also dont call it vandilism on aweb sight that cant figure out where somone was born

        thanx,
      --Arain11 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)--Arain11 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)arain11

EVER TEAM Page Deleted

Hi, do you remender the EVER TEAM page that you tagged for deletion for ambigious advertising? i have worked on the content and soemone had removed the tag. there was still the notability issue. it was tagged for possible deletion but then some other people and i were debating on it. i was gathering additional references to add them on the page but then, out of nowhere someone else deletes my page! this is really becoming a pain in the neck, and i really would like you to help me recreate it, in a way that it does not get deleted this time. what should i do so that you help me? thank you.--Sazarian (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I fully sympathise with the frustration you must be feeling. You clearly put a good deal of effort into this article, and to see it deleted must be disheartening. Since you made a number of contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EVER TEAM you will be aware that the issue is finding suitable sources, and you will also be aware of what objections were raised to the sources you gave. I see that the company claims to be "the leading European software vendor in the field of integrated Enterprise Content Management". If this is so then it should not be too difficult to find suitable independent reliable sources. In the articles for deletion discussion you said "if you try to research on google.fr about EVER TEAM you will see results". I have tried a search on google.fr, and found there were numerous hits. I have not examined them in detail to see how many if any of them are significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the company, but at a quick glance it looks as though at least some of them may be. However, some of them certainly aren't: for example, the company's own web site, Wikipedia, business listings, etc. Also even French Google manages to pick up numerous totally spurious hits such as "China to dispatch its biggest ever team to Vancouver". Sorting the wheat from the chaff will take some work, but if the company is anywhere near as significant as it claims then there must be suitable sources. (If the company is not anywhere near as significant as it claims then it is probably not notable, and it is likely to be a waste of time trying.) Naturally it is more helpful on English Wikipedia to give sources written in English, but this is not essential. Do make sure you are acquainted with the essential ideas of the general notability guieline, the notability guideline for companies, and the guideline on reliable sources.

In the deletion discussion you said "for the ones that you say do not mention EVER TEAM, in fact they do, but the document in which they do is a document that should be purchased, thus cannot be put online. if you provide me with your email address i can send you a snapshot of what they say about EVER TEAM." You can email this at Special:EmailUser/JamesBWatson if you like, provided you have set an email address of your own at Special:Preferences. If you do so I will look at what you send and let you know whether I think they are usable as sources. However, if suitable sources can be found which are freely available it will be better, as anyone will be able to check them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)