User talk:Shoessss/Archive Nov 2007
You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
November 11, 2007
Time: 5:00 pm
Location: Buca Di Beppo, 258 South 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
David Vitter RFC
editCould you please leave your comments at a Davit Vitter RFC? Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism warning
editI think you might want to take a closer look at the edit you warned me about. I was the one removing the vandalism. AlexiusHoratius 22:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Isaw that right away. For some reasone the Bot I am using is just a tad off. I already removed from your page and Apologize with head bowed. Shoessss | Chat 22:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- No harm done. AlexiusHoratius 22:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Isaw that right away. For some reasone the Bot I am using is just a tad off. I already removed from your page and Apologize with head bowed. Shoessss | Chat 22:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Article for Deletion:Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope
editHope you will relook at this article since I made some changes to it and added 3rd party links as requested by other users. This article never was written or meant to be advertising/spam. Mca2001 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Mca2001, I did take the time to re-look at the Woodland Hills Camera & Telescope article and still have to say it does not pass the Notability [1]as I see it. Below are some helpful tidbits from Wikipedia explaining the criteria that need’s to be met in situations like this.
Primary criterion
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:
- Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.
Special note: advertising and promotion Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy of long standing. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order of precedence:
- Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view
- Delete remaining advertising content from the article
- Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.
Hope this helps. Shoessss | Chat 23:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Your Sig
editSeems to be broken, the box isn't closing. --Nate1481( t/c) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
David Vitter
editThanks for the revert on the page. This WP:SPA got under my skin but I erred by edit warring with him (though, technically within the 3RR rules) -- I should have done a WP:ANI. He was blocked for 24 hours, fwiw. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 21:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Four examples:
- Microsoft Word satisfies this criterion because people who are wholly independent of Microsoft have written books about it.
- All cars that have had Haynes Manuals written about them satisfy this criterion.
- The Oxford Union satisfies this criterion for having two books (by Graham and by Walter) written and published about it.
- Hewlett-Packard satisfies this criterion for, amongst other things, being covered in a feature article in the Palo Alto Weekly.
- ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.