IT Psychologist

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in ANGEL Learning. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Glen,

Unfortunately Wikipedia e-mail tends to end up in my Junk E-Mail folder, so I don't usually see it right away. Sorry about that. I'll be reading it as well as the message you posted on my talk page within a few hours and will get back to you as soon as I can. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok again sorry about that - While I have the e-mail link enabled, my Wikipedia talk page is really the best way to get a hold of me, especially if the discussion is directly related to Wikipedia articles. This way I can include helpful wikilinks (if needed) in the message.

Since it sounds like we're on the same page about the external links on articles besides the Scholar360 article I'm going to skip over that. If you have any questions about that removal do let me know.

Regarding the external links on the Scholar360 article, I removed the extra links because one link per site is generally sufficient. A reader can always follow that link and traverse the site to find the other information. I took a look at Desire2Learn as well, and noticed that article was overloaded to, so I've just reduced it down to a single link as well.

Regarding the Scholar360 article as a whole, it's not clear that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability (particularly software notability guidelines); in particular, it has no proper references. Every article should be cited using reliable sources. While the company's website itself might be an acceptable citation for some of the information, articles need references from outside sources (ie a review in a reputable magazine, article in a well-known newspaper, etc).

Since we're comparing articles, I also tagged Desire2Learn with a similar tag, indicating that it's in need of references as well. If you come across other articles lacking such sources, feel free to add these types of cleanup tags. The simplest one is {{unreferenced}}.

I hope this info clears up the questions you had. Let me know if you have any more --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can live with the article having {{unreferenced}} on it instead of {{notability}} - the net result is the same; if sufficient sources are provided from reliable sources, the article would then most likely meet notability criteria. I have also cleaned up the ANGEL Learning article and tagged it appropriately.

If there are any sources you would like to add, but aren't sure where or how to put them in, please by all means feel free to mention them on the article's talk page. Then, I or some other editor can evaluate them and insert them into the article if appropriate. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for taking the time to try to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I can't tell you how many new editors I've talked with who come here with their mind set on how they feel Wikipedia should operate, and aren't open to discussion and reason about how it actually does operate.

I think the source you added is a good start, but the article really could use a couple solid cites from what's considered reliable sources. An example would be a review of Scholar 360 in a well-known magazine, newspaper, journal, etc. WP:RS has a good explanation of what are and aren't considered reliable sources. If you could find a source that meets those standards it would certainly help shore up the article.

Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, allow me to formally welcome you to the Wikipedia project with a welcome message that contains some useful information for new editors:

Hello IT Psychologist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

AfD nomination of Scholar360

Scholar360, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Scholar360 satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholar360 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Scholar360 during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. CitiCat ^♫ 01:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)