User talk:Cchallag
|
References
[edit]Hi, Cchallag: I notice your new article has been tagged as an advert. Since you have contested the removal of the article, if I understand the process right, this means an Article for Deletion discussion will be started. In any event, you need to know . . . Wikipedia only keeps articles on notable topics, and (outside of the obvious things like William Shakespeare, United States of America, and Theory of General Relativity), notable is defined here as having been written about by a significant number of reliable sources independent of the subject. So your article will need references to survive, and only references that are not to Nokia's own website or press releases will count for this purpose. (Nokia refs are helpful in providing further information or clarification, but don't count for establishing notability.) Find some independent technology reviewer, journal article, or something talking about it and substantiating some of the claims in the article, and that's how it will get to stay in Wikipedia. Absence of refs doesn't make the article more neutral; references demonstrate that it is accurate as well as that it meets the notability threshhold (often a problem for new stuff, but those are the rules, at least on en.wikipedia). The links in the welcome message above give you more information; I hope you don't mind my trying to help with more directed advice. We welcome new editors with the energy to write articles; I hope this article gets to stay in Wikipedia and that you write more. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you should add both the Gizmodo and the other one, and also make use of the Nokia white paper as an informational reference. If it's been reviewed anywhere else, add that too. You want to establish that independent reviewers have written about it, as well as substantiate the claims in the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have seconded your request for PureView Pro to be undeleted, since you had followed the instructions for contesting the PROD (proposal for rapid deletion) and agreed to add refs - or were doing so when it got deleted. (I am not an admin so I cannot see deleted pages or your edits that got deleted when the page was deleted). If the page is restored, it then has to be improved within a week and the AfD discussion has to agree with its being kept. Unfortunately, talking about comparable products whose articles exist here is a deprecated argument. It has to be kept on its own merits. Let's see if we and other editors can do that. First step is for an admin to agree it should be undeleted. Please don't give up on Wikipedia; I don't have the expertise to save the article myself, or to write other articles in this area. You do! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
COI
[edit]I believe that you have been editing from 192.100.120.41 (talk) which is registered to Nokia Corporation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- By "COI" RHaworth means "conflict of interest". I'd reccommend reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations to understand what this means on Wikipedia. Cloveapple (talk) 17:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.