User talk:ChristineShaw
Welcome
[edit]
|
Does my page still have multiple issues?
[edit]![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Does my page still have multiple issues? Since this message was put here the page have been edited to meet the asked for criterias. Will the message dissapear automatically if/when the article is "ok", or does someone need to remove it?
--ChristineShaw (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Message has to be removed manually. Someone may come along and give you their view or to speed things up you could ask the editor who inserted the tags - it's in the page history - User talk:MikeWazowski or you could post a question at the Help Desk WP:HD. Ronhjones (Talk) 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
--19maxx (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- What message are you talking about? The {{helpme}} message?
- I was assuming Roschier Attorneys Ltd. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! I'll talk to Mike.
--ChristineShaw (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello
[edit]Hi, if you need any help on any articles in formating or any thing else I will help you just drop a note at my talk page. Here is a link to it:User talk:Deezy.D.. I will redo the whole article and we can work on it together if you want.Deezy.D. (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Three tips for editing
[edit]I thought I'd give you a few tips to help you on Wikipedia. None of them are absolutely required, but they are all good to do.
- On talk pages it's customary to indent your reply one more than the one you are replying to. You do this by putting one more ":" than what you are replying to.
- When you edit a page it's best to fill in the "edit summary" field with a very brief description of what changes you are making. For example you might label an edit to an article with "added a source" or "spelling" or "changed to neutral wording" or "removed non-independent sources". On a talk page your summary might be as simple as "reply" or might be a brief summary of your reply.
- Look for the tab at the top of every page that says "watch". If there are pages you want to keep track of just go to that page and click the watch tab. For example I watch articles I am working on and I also watch my own talk page and the talk pages of people I have frequent conversations with. Then I can see all the recent changes to every page that interests me by clicking on the "my watchlist" at the top of the page.
Cloveapple (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]I asked an experienced editor named Ironholds for some input on a couple sources because they have more legal knowledge than I do. Ironholds said both Chambers and Partners and Lex Mundi are definitely reliable sources. Ironholds also offered to look for further sources. I'd recommend accepting that offer. (I posted this same note as part of our conversation on my talkpage, but I thought I'd leave a note here also so it wouldn't get lost in all the other comments.) Cloveapple (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thank you! I'll have a look at your comments and amend accordingly. I'll continue to talk to Ironholds about further amendments as well. --ChristineShaw (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Would you pelase take a look at the sources again? They have all been amended now. --ChristineShaw (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look when I get home from work. I saw your note to Mike. I don't know if you noticed but I had already pulled some of the tags that used to be there. Whether he responds or not, I expect that I'll be taking the rest of the tags off soon. If I remember right some of the references need to be fixed a little so they are clearer, but that should be easy to fix. You've done a very good job figuring out Wikipedia's odd rules and it's been a pleasure to work with you on the article. Cloveapple (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Great, thank you so much, likewise! Let me know when you have had a look at it again, and we'll take it from there. --ChristineShaw (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've looked through it again and added the latest comments to the checklist on my talk page. There are some things I am hoping that you will add or change but they are fairly small simple things. Let me know if any of them don't make sense. Cloveapple (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you! I'll have a look right away and get back to you. --ChristineShaw (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have gone through your comments and adjusted accordingly, see what you think. I have also added an extra sentence to the article, along with a new source, I'm still working on getting all the details for that, but I'll let you know when I have everything, if maybe you could have a look at that too. Thanks again for all your help!--ChristineShaw (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- It might take me a day or two to get to it, but I'll look through it. Cloveapple (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem! I have added information for the last source I added, it would be great if you could take a look also on that. --ChristineShaw (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I looked through it again source by source. Detailed comments are on my talk page. It could use one or more section headings, but that's the only complaint I could see anyone making. I took all the tags off. Cloveapple (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have made some comments on you talk page regarding the last two sources, hopefully I'm on the right track! Great news about the tags also, thank you for that! Regarding the headings, would it be OK to add more headings if and when I add more content? Or would you recomend me to add one or more already now?--ChristineShaw (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I looked through it again source by source. Detailed comments are on my talk page. It could use one or more section headings, but that's the only complaint I could see anyone making. I took all the tags off. Cloveapple (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem! I have added information for the last source I added, it would be great if you could take a look also on that. --ChristineShaw (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- It might take me a day or two to get to it, but I'll look through it. Cloveapple (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have gone through your comments and adjusted accordingly, see what you think. I have also added an extra sentence to the article, along with a new source, I'm still working on getting all the details for that, but I'll let you know when I have everything, if maybe you could have a look at that too. Thanks again for all your help!--ChristineShaw (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you! I'll have a look right away and get back to you. --ChristineShaw (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've looked through it again and added the latest comments to the checklist on my talk page. There are some things I am hoping that you will add or change but they are fairly small simple things. Let me know if any of them don't make sense. Cloveapple (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Great, thank you so much, likewise! Let me know when you have had a look at it again, and we'll take it from there. --ChristineShaw (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look when I get home from work. I saw your note to Mike. I don't know if you noticed but I had already pulled some of the tags that used to be there. Whether he responds or not, I expect that I'll be taking the rest of the tags off soon. If I remember right some of the references need to be fixed a little so they are clearer, but that should be easy to fix. You've done a very good job figuring out Wikipedia's odd rules and it's been a pleasure to work with you on the article. Cloveapple (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Would you pelase take a look at the sources again? They have all been amended now. --ChristineShaw (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Roschier
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Roschier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Please see our talk-page for more information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roschier). ChristineShaw (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)ChristineShaw (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)