User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2018/March

Orphaned non-free image File:WDXI logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WDXI logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Request on 23:16:56, 5 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Tng1007

• Tng1007 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Matthew P. Mayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear MadeYourReadThis, Per your helpful suggestions, I removed words from the Wiki entry I submitted so that it would read from a more neutral point of view. My apologies, I am learning how to write a good Wiki entry. I responded to your notes in the Talk section of the page, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly, so I thought I would send you a note directly as well. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do to help the entry be accepted. Thank you very much for your help!Tng1007 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Tng1007 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

When you are ready to resubmit, please do. I may not review your resubmission but someone will get to it.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

09:27:58, 9 March 2018 review of submission by Justin Wabscott

• Justin Wabscott (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Studio 3T (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear MadeYourReadThis, your objection to the article is exactly the same as PrimeFac, the previous reviewer. But since Primefac's objection that the page and its citations did not indicate 'notability' but merely 'how-tos' I have added *three* citations from highly prominent and reputable sources, indicating precisely the 'notability' of Studio 3T. Specifically footnote #3, in an independent article from Andrew Oliver at InfoWorld, the existence of the Studio 3T IDE is called out as *proving* the mainstream credentials of MongoDB, and that the NoSQL database platform has truly grown up. In the database world this is very big news. Similarly the Microsoft docs citation indicate the notability of the Studio IDE by referencing its indispensability in Cosmos DB API access from Mongo. Again, this is very notable news in the big data space, when Mongo and Microsoft are seen to be coming together. Is there any way that the page could be reviewed by someone with expertise in the world of databases both RDBMS and NoSQL? It lets Wikipedia's reputation down to carry pages on IntelliJ and Eclipse Java IDE's, as well as many insignificant ones such as MyEclipse and even Understand Software, which a) has not been updated in 3 years and b) also references Softpedia as a citation. That IDE however only has 8 citations. Studio 3T has 23. I would very much like to ask for a second opinion in this case.

Justin Wabscott (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)