User talk:QuantifiedElf

Dear QuantifiedElf,

I am also a new member, so first - thank you for your contribution.

You have just made a following comment: "I would like to approve this article, but the citations seem lacking. Some paragraphs and sections, like Physical proximity have no citations. I would personally want to see this improved before moving it to the main space." Actually, I cited (referred) the first-level title of those paragraphs where you need additional links, sources (N°3). For me it means that the whole part is linked to the given source, and any other links just complete that source. If this methodology is wrong in your point of view, I can agree with that - of course. But then it is also needed to put the very same source at the end of all the paragraphs, because they have the common origin.

What do you suggest, how to deal with it? Regards. Prince19911991 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Prince. Yes, I see how you've structured the citations now. On Wikipedia, especially at WP:AfC, we are always checking for verifiability. I think it's somewhat misleading for technical content to have only one citation presented above an entire section. And considering that you are presenting other references, like #5 and #9, it's best to clarify where you are deriving information for each paragraph.

There is a function within the citation parameter that allows you to use a references more than once. It works like this:

Temporal networks refer to a type of dynamical systems where the additional dimension compared to static networks is the time.<ref name=FirstRef>{{cite web |url=http://www.website.com |title=Title of Article |last1=Last |first1=First |last2= |first2= |date=Date |website=Website name |publisher=Publisher |accessdate=13 June 2013}}</ref> As the mathematical representation of the network, a graph consists of a set of nodes and edges, where the later express the interaction between the nodes.<ref name=FirstRef />

References

{{reflist}}

And it displays like this:

Temporal networks refer to a type of dynamical systems where the additional dimension compared to static networks is the time.^[1] As the mathematical representation of the network, a graph consists of a set of nodes and edges, where the later express the interaction between the nodes.^[1]

References

Can you clear up this issue and then I'll take another look? Thanks. QuantifiedElf (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Haven't heard from you for a while so I've declined the article at AfC. You can continue to work on the article and then resubmit when it's ready. QuantifiedElf (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi QuantifiedElf, Thanks for your feedback on my article! I've added a "Further Reading" section (or should I call it "Sources," or give it some other heading?) that lists periodicals and books with additional coverage. I've checked other random articles in the "American Ceramists" category, and many there have minimal references, so I hope this will help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Steven_Montgomery FreePress48 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

FreePress, it's best not to judge a newly submitted article to articles that already exist. Some articles have been sitting around forever without much review and probably shouldn't be there (at least in terms of Wikipedia's notability requirements). You should check out the basic notability requirements at WP:BIO. From the sources you've provided, I think Montgomery is almost there. The New York Times Fantasy Machines From Technology's Dark Side article is a good indicator of notability, but I'd like to see one or two more pieces like it. Try searching Google News Archives to see if you can't turn up anything else. The books you've provided don't do much for me because I don't have access to them and they aren't showing up in Google Books, so it's difficult to determine how reliable they are. QuantifiedElf (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do -- thanks for the additional guidance! FreePress48 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to evaluate the article creation of PROS, Inc.. I wanted to verify that I understood your hesitations to approve the article so that I may make improvements to it so that it may be approved.

First, you'd like to see more 3rd party references. I had PROS referenced for basic information, so I can understand how that would be considered 1st-party references. I included NYSE, Business Wire, Reuters, and Seeking Alpha. Are these not classified as 3rd party? They are not affiliated with the business. Do I simply need to include more of these 3rd party references?

Second, you'd like to understand why the article would be relevant, correct? It is a NYSE business and works with many Fortune companies. I've noticed a number of articles on companies. Do I need to show more reason why it is significant? I found an article on Insider Monkey that discusses the foreseen growth/potential for the company: http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/hedge-funds-are-betting-on-pros-holdings-inc-pro-116511/. Morningstar also projects growth for the company. Would these help with the relevancy?

For what it's worth, I wanted to disclose that I do not work for this company nor do I do business with it. I am trying to identify article gaps and noticed this since it is a Houston-based company and I am from Houston. --domesticenginerd 18:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You should read over the notability criteria at WP:CORP. You'll also need to learn what a reliable sources is at WP:RS. The Business Wire is a press release, so no, it's not independent. The Seeking Alpha article was authored by "PRO" and has a disclosure at the top of the article. QuantifiedElf (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There is still the Reuters article and things can be found on Google, Yahoo, etc. I suggested the insider monkey article. I am trying to identify what needs to be improved and am seeking your advice. I feel like I am just getting reasons why it does not work currently vs. what I am asking. Please advise. Thanks. --domesticenginerd 20:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Reuters reference listed on your article is a broken link, but I assume it was supposed to lead here: . Anyways, it doesn't help with notability. If you think there are better sources on Google and Yahoo, then you should find them and put them in the article. In my previous post I suggested that you review WP:CORP and WP:RS. I wasn't trying to dissuade you from pursuing this article, I'm simply trying to point you in the right direction. If you understand what makes a company notable and what a reliable source is, you'll understand what we're looking for at AfC and how you can improve your article. QuantifiedElf (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello QuantifiedElf,

Thank you for taking the time to review my WindowsWear article. I took your feedback into consideration and I updated the article using your advice. If I can improve the submission in any way so it will be moved into the article space please let me know.

Thank you again, MickeyMouse5349 MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice work! Your first round of revisions are definitely going in the right direction.

The original submission was highly promotional and didn't establish notability.

The current submission is less promotional (although it still needs work) and still doesn't establish notability.

So what else can you do? Well, the History, Function, and Awards sections have no references. Focus on supporting your information with inline citations. Your citations should be of reliable sources.

You're a good writer, but the style you're using for this article isn't right for an encyclopedia. It reads like a company brochure (albeit an educational and well-written one). Use short sentences, simple words, and facts that matter. Consider this selection: "Immediately after its creation, the company put into place a team of professional photographers, graphic designers, and web developers from around the world. The team includes Raul Tovar, Head of Photography." I don't think it's necessary to comment that the company put together a professional team... what company wouldn't? And it's irrelevant that they came from around the world. What's worse, this information isn't supported by any source, which means that anyone can delete it at any time. Rather than revising these sentences, I'd remove them completely, or possibly, "The company's team includes Raul Tovar, who is head of photography. Read through writing better articles and give it another pass. QuantifiedElf (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I updated the WindowsWear article per your suggestions. I fixed the language and added new citations. If there is anything else I can do please let me know. MickeyMouse5349 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, Mickey, I've reviewed the work you've done on WindowsWear and have again declined the article for creation. You definitely improved the content, but I don't see the company as meeting notability requirements and think that it's WP:TOOSOON for WindowsWear to be on Wikipedia. Of course, if you'd like a second opinion you can re-submit the article for review. Cheers. QuantifiedElf (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello QuantifiedElf,

I am new to Wikipedia, and I needed your advice on creating an article that was declined due to inadequate evidence on notability of the subject, Tom Adelstein.

There is plenty of material out there that I can use to support my claims, and I understand now that some of the references are not independent of the subject. Other than citing more independent sources, is there something else that I need to do to improve my submission?

Nedenhoffer (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

My only advice right now would be to eliminate any information that isn't supported by a reliable source. Incorporate more reliable sources. When you've done that, get back to me. QuantifiedElf (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

This is in regard to your decision to decline my submission of the article, Clicktopurchase - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Clicktopurchase

Since originally writing the article, I have added further citations, including sources other than Property Week (which was confirmed by a previous reviewer not to be an "unbiased or poor source"), such as CoStar, which is another reliable and trustworthy source in commercial property media.

I have gone through all existing online sources and selected what I think are the most reliable sources of news relating to Clicktopurchase. I have made the article as unbiased and as objective as possible, by keeping the tone entirely factual. As mentioned before, Clicktopurchase is an actual online platform for the exchange of contracts, having been used by national and international firms, and is thus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, I think, just as an article on eBay, for example, would be.

Therefore, I am at a loss as to what to do to ensure successful submission of the article.

Can you please suggest what else I can do?

Thank you for your help.

Neil Singer (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

He Neil, first let me say that you've done an excellent job writing a neutral article with an encyclopedic tone, well done.

Unfortunately, the fact that Clicktopurchase is used by national and international firms does not make it worthy of a Wikipedia presence, and the difference between this company and eBay is that if you do a Google News search for eBay, you'll get over 135,000 results including in-depth articles in reliable sources. The same search engine returns 0 results when you replace "eBay" for "Clicktopurchase". Not to mention that eBay is a massively popular Fortune 500 company. There is simply no comparing Clicktopurchase to eBay.

Clicktopurchase isn't notable right now because it doesn't meet the notability criteria for companies. See WP:CORP.

Since you know how to write in a neutral tone and how to format citations, why don't you consider finding another business or subject to write about? QuantifiedElf (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, QuantifiedElf. You have new messages at Pol430's talk page.
Message added 18:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pol430 talk to me 18:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You recently declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Beorama for lack of inline citations. If you had paid attention to the article, you would have seen inline citations in the article, but was only missing a {{reflist}} at the bottom to make the happy links show up. Please be more careful when reviewing AfC submissions. I have re-activated the AfC submission (by undoing your decline) and would appreciate it if you would take more care. Hasteur (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I declined the submission for notability, and I reviewed the article's source code to view the citations, of which there are only two. User:ChzzBot IV left the comment about missing inline citations, not me. It's okay, we all make mistakes. QuantifiedElf (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello QuantifiedElf,

Thank you for reviewing the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/5rooms.com.

"I can see you've been working quite a bit on the 5rooms article, which I've recently declined at AfC. Let me know if you want some help. The article has some style issues, and I'm not sure notability is there yet."

Can you please help me to fix the style issues?

There is a notable reference from Yahoo news and also industry related media (magazines, newspapers) in South Africa.

Thank you for your help and guidance. Your help is much appreciated.

Pioneercpt (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pioneercpt - I don't really have time right now to fix the style issues myself, nor am I convinced that correcting the style issues would improve the chances of the article being approved for creation. I suggest you read up on WP:MOS and WP:CORP. QuantifiedElf (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Black Beauty Supply. The article is supposed to be about The History of the black beauty supply. It differs from main stream beauty supply because of segregation. I did put it in there but did not say segregation. Do I need to add more? There isn't that much more known about the subject.

Terryakinspr (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Rather than creating a new article on Black Beauty Supply, I think you should consider developing a new section within Wikipedia's Beauty products article. The fact that there isn't much known about the subject suggests that it wouldn't be appropriate to have a standalone article about it. Check out WP:Referencing for beginners to get started. QuantifiedElf (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Quantified Elf,

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm trying to understand how to get my article accepted. I was modeling it off of Vocera's wiki page, which includes only references from its own website. Because my page was declined, I added only outside references that should qualify Voalte as a notable company. Can you take another look and let me know what I need to fix in order to publish the page?

Thanks again for your help, Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cearly (talk • contribs) 13:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Give me a few days to check out this article and maybe make some improvements. It looks we might be able to establish notability, in which case I would suggest a hefty copy edit before publication. QuantifiedElf (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I never got back to you about your article at AfC, it slipped my mind. I've just finished reviewing and accepting your article. You did some really exceptional work bringing the article up to Wikipedia's standards and proving notability. Nice work! QuantifiedElf (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Quantified Elf! Thank you for accepting my article. I appreciate the help. Have a great night and thanks for the baklava! Cearly (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent article creations :). Keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear QuantifiedElf,

Thanks for reviewing the entry on Ben Sutton: Articles for creation/Ben Sutton.

We are very new to Wikipedia so would like your guidance on how to improve our submission. We tried to present biographical information but apparently it seems to Wikipedia to be promotional/advertising. Can you help clarify that and provide specific recommendations on how we can fix it? We did link to numerous articles that the information came from so could use advice on that as well. Please let me know what advice you have.

Thanks College_Sports_Fan

College Sports Fan (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm a fairly new user to Wikipedia. I've lurked and made some small edits, but this was the first page I made. It was originally rejected, so I talked to the Editor that evaluated my work, and he gave me tips and assistance in bringing my page up to his standards. Obviously, though, different people want different things, and I was hoping you'd be able to help me bring the article up to your standards, and hopefully, Wikipedia's publishing standards?

The article in question is at AfC/TouchCopy

Thanks,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John R.V.D. (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks for your message and I definitely respect your perseverance in navigating the AfC environment. There are a few issues with your submission, and my primary concern was that it read like an advertisement. When you write, "According to the application's website" and "TouchCopy received overall positive reviews," I get the feeling that the intention of the article is to impress potential customers rather than inform consumers and everyday Wikipedia readers. It's my personal opinion, but I don't think user ratings are relevant enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. In fact, I don't see much weight in any of the information in the Reception section. You've done an adequate job of being neutral in this section, but I still feel that, based on the actual reviews, you are still leaning to present this product as being more positively received than it actually has been.

In addition to the advertisement issues, I'm not sure this subject meets the notability requirements at WP:CORP. The passing mentions in borderline reliable sources don't seem to justify an article of this length, and I think it just might be too soon for an article on this app. I think that if you tried to beef up the reliable sources and limited your content to what you have in the introduction, the article MIGHT be accepted as a stub. QuantifiedElf (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the reply. I see your point on the first quoted text, I'll reword that one. As for the reviews, I was following a few other software pages as template for what I added to the page, since the intended purpose was to fix "Comparison of iPod managers". I noticed it was in disrepair, so I thought I'd go in, add some missing software pages, update others, and see if it stands the test of time. TouchCopy is fairly old in the business, but I noticed it was missing, so I thought I'd make its page first. I didn't expect the review process to be quite so harsh, but then again, that's probably a good thing, stops any junk being added. The review section was modelled after TuneUp Utilities' page, since TuneUp Media was another program I was thinking of making a page for. Is it not somehow following Wikipedia regulations?

I could try and find more reviews, but I think that's the problem with them, they tend to be overblown in one direction or the other, and I didn't manage to find any more from reasonably well known websites at the time of writing.

Well, I'll go back to the drawing board, and try and make this more presentable and appealing as a Wikipedia article.

Thank you for your help.

Kind regards,

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by John R.V.D. (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi QuantifiedElf -- I was glad to see your note with appreciation of some of my historic site articles, which you posted at wt:HSITES. Sorry i didn't see it promptly and havent gotten back to you. Do let's chat. --doncram 17:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in doing articles on U.S. NRHP-listed places? If so there is a fair amount of info at wp:NRHPhelp which I and others put together. Or i would be happy to chat you through the process i use, if you would pic a redlink NRHP-listed place, anywhere indexed from List of RHPs. Or are you interested in historic sites in another country? --doncram 22:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I recently submitted an article for review. It appears that you edited the last version and commented that the company in question didn't have enough notoriety. I've made some edits and resubmitted, but I'd like to point out that not only is this a very large company, they were also caught selling hosting space to Syria, which was/is a pretty big issue. It seems both pretty notorious and like something that people would want to know about when choosing companies.

If you have any more feedback, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/HostDime.com_Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridbeck (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Crealogix requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Denniss (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi QuantifiedElf,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Crealogix is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crealogix until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)