User talk:Amrad

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome!

Grameen Foundation USA

Dear Amrad -- welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you find it satisfying and make many useful contributions (I like your user page ...)

Please get to know the rules of Wikipedia now that you're here. One thing to consider is that the entry you made on Microfinance today does not pass the test of being 'encyclopedic'. In fact, is looks a lot like spam, and sooner or later, an administrator will certainly delete it. Wikipedia does not publish press releases and is not a news service. Consider the following:

you put your content in the wrong place and used the wrong title ... if you want to address the larger question of the efforts to date to bring microfinance services to North America and Europe, please do so under a separate section, and be sure to cite the book published a few years ago in the US specifically on this topic (I forget the title now; you can find it on Amazon), address the issue of aboriginal microfinance, etc.
you provided only one citation and it was to Grameen Bank, a non-neutral party ... on the microfinance page there are no external links in the body of the text, other than the one you just posted ... I have noticed that administrators always delete external links that looks 'spammy' ... this will need citations to reputatable third-party sources
you provided no context ... this another effort to bring microcredit to North America, the latest in a line of efforts going back a quarter century, all of which have failed ... this raises questions about its notability to microfinance, at least until such a time as it is able to prove it can do what many others have failed to

This entry would probably be notable on the Grameen Bank page, and if the effort proves successful over a minimum of 3-5 years, it should then be notable in the broader field of microcredit. It is not clear why it would ever be notable in the microfinance page since that page specifically addresses efforts to solve a range of poor people's financial needs, not just credit (if Grameen can successfully bring micropensions and low-cost international remittances to New York, please do keep us up to date!)

In short, please move this entry to the Grameen Bank page or remove it altogether until there is enough evidence to make it encyclopedic. ThanksBrett epic (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more information, then why don't you add it? Everyone adds what they know, isn't that how Wikipedia works?

I didn't add Grameen, it was already mentioned, and anyway, it's the best known (and probably biggest) microfinance-bank.

I've added another link. Amrad (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works best when wikipedians listen to each other so that articles become better. You have shown with this edit that you can't yet differentiate between encyclopedic content and a press release (or simply corporate propaganda). When you have been on Wikipedia for a while you will probably understand this much better. I will help you make your entry encylopedic, but I'm not going to write it for you. You have also shown with this edit that you don't know what microfinance is. There is nothing -- repeat, nothing -- in your edit that belongs in a general overview of microfinance. Wikipedia also works because people don't waste each other's time with pointless revert wars. Wikipedians usually learn quickly enough that revert wars lead to intervention by editors. I have itemized on the talk page exactly what you need to do to improve your edit. I have not reverted. You have reverted without making any substantive effort to address the issues raised on the talk page. Who do you think the editor will support? Hopefully you'll learn quickly and in future, become a great Wikipedian!

Meanwhile, please either fix what you've written or move it to a more appropriate location. You can count on me not to move quickly; I'm in Johwasharki about 30 kms. from Raebarelli in central Uttar Pradesh, analyzing the transaction processes of a Regional Rural Bank. 95% of the customers are illiterate, and the internet connections are very slow!Brett epic (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo

"Because the timeline of space exploration article is clogged up by trivia that seem to be intended to hide the fact that the USSR won the space race in the 50s and 60s, I decided to make this into a more balanced list." Now you've got it. Thanks.bov (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie

Hello, thank you for adding Nova's commentary about the film! I was wondering if you could provide more detail to cite the source, since it would allow other readers to easily verify the commentary. Details like time and date would be useful. Let me know if you can provide such details! —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]