en User talk:Bongomatic Archive 1

Jemmabond (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Could you please explain to me (in English!) what makes a topic an advertisement, because I just don't get it. Also, how do you write a 'neutral' topic?Jemmabond (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SevOne

Hi, can you explain in detail which part of the SevOne needs to be cleaned up. This wiki is no different from any other small company on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwmetz (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have to agree with the above user. The article does not meet CSD criteria, especially as an advertisement. I replaced the tag with an AFD. Feel free to comment in the discussion.--LAA Fan^sign _review 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Perkins (children's author)

Thanks for note : Advert tag removed. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic

I dont understand how the entry is advertising? i assure you that it is being written from an objective, neutral, standpoint. I have referred to several other entries about similar companies and taken from them in the form of tone, style and formatting. The entry is still Under Construction and I am working on adding references. There is some content taken from w3c.org and I have referenced them at the bottom of the page. Please advise me on what further steps I could take to better the article and remove the advert tag from it... --JikeSpingleton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tags were Inapproriate

Referenced 3rd party sources include TIME magazine and the New Times who consider the subject both expert and notable. Referenced materials establish a more than 10 year history of 3rd party sources. Article has been edited to be extra neutral. It in no way, however, ever read like an advertisement. Larryisb (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delver Social Search

Sorry about the tags issue I've made minor chanegs each time and i thought it will be ok each time. I've done everything to write the entry from a neutral point of view, what else can I do to remove the problamtic tags? supermeshi (talk)

Hexaware Technologies Limited

I don't understand why you have tagged this article as an advertisement. The article is truely encylopedic with references from third party authentic news sources like economic times, times of india, business standard and much more. This article was recovered and deleted twice earlier and I am fed up of convincing individuals to explain their "views". Please point out a single statement which is an ad. I am removing the template. --gppande «talk» 06:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why that sentence is seen as an advertisement? But if you feel so, please go ahead and do the modifications to the sentence as you deem fit. Such a help, would be greatly appreciated. Aim is to improve the article's quality - as done by many other editors yesterday when the article featured in DYK. --gppande «talk» 08:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Arthur Frederick Ostrander

I am the author of subject article, and Arthur Ostrander was my grandfather. What sort of references do I need to provide to show notability in the sense required. I have several newspaper articles and two scientific journal articles that demonstrate both the importance of the project at the time and my grandfather's contributions. The one reference I cite, however, does clearly demonstrate that my grandffather's contribution to the respirator project was most likely the key allowing to move forward to the point where it was demonstrable and worthy of a patent. I want to make ths article conform to the standards required, but ask your help to do so. Thank you in advance for any assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Ostrander (talk • contribs) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Frederick Ostrander (continued)

Hello again,

I edited the article using the guidelines you referenced, as best I can understand them. I hope that the updated version addresses at least some of your concerns. I expanded the references a bit, but must go to our family's archive data to get further references. My grandfather is mentioned in several newspapers and scientific journals as being absolutely key to the respirator project, but only a few are extant. I will try to pull as many references to him as I can. The best one, from the point of view of establishing his importance, is the one I currently have listed from the 1907 Washington Times, with a quote from the article included. Thanks for the guidance. Please let me know what you think of the updated article. Thanks, GregGreg Ostrander (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van Phillips (inventor)

{{helpme}} I created the above-captioned article by first creating it as a page under my user page, and the moving into the article space. As it happens, this means it doesn't seem to show up in the Special:NewPages, and doesn't seem to require patrol. (a) This seems to be a bug; and (b) I was hoping this article would get attention from people who look at new articles. Can you help?

Thanks, Bongomatic (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spruced it up a bit, will leave the helpme template up to get another set of eyes on it. –xenocidic (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits . . . but was hoping for understanding more about how the article move allowed evasion of Special:NewPages and the patrol (or a path to bug report / other means of raising the issue). Thoughts? Thanks.

Try WP:VPT. Cut-and-paste moving into the mainspace would be a workaround for this; if there is not much significant history to retain. –xenocidic (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

heh, no problem. –xenocidic (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, those are only needed if someone might stumble to the article looking for the {{otherperson}} . For example: if I am looking for van phillips the golfer, it's unlikely i would type "Van Phillips (inventor)" into the search box. I would probably just type "Van Phillips" and because of the dab page, I will get where I need to be. Make sense? –xenocidic (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Frederick Ostrander

Hello again,

I added all the verifiable information I personally have access to into the article, in hope of satisfying the objection to its notability. There are 3 newspaper articles that name Arthur Ostrander and list the uniqueness of his contributions, plus several more articles in newspapers and scientific journals that establish the history and contributions of the respiration device to medical science. Beyond this I have a statement from the US Patent granted for the device to Poe, the inventor, and his assignment of credit to others, namely my great-grandmother(Harriet Ostrander), who had to be named because my great-grandfather(Abram Ostrander), was an invalid at the time, and my grandfather Arthur was legally unable to be listed as minor. The assignor listing shows Harriet, but not the explanation why. I have to rely on personal statements to show this, but further, there is no mention of Harriet in any of the literature except in this patent, so this claim should seem reasonable on its face.

The claim of notability here for Arthur Ostrander is more than fame in 1907. I am trying to ensure his contributions to the respirator invention are given the credit they deserve. Without him, it would not have been possible; without the device, the research world would not have seen that artificial respiration was a workable treatment for those in respiratory arrest. Others that came after Poe would not have had his shoulders to stand on to look forward to newer inventions that ultimately led to the modern ventilator. My grandfather was the linchpin in a series of events that would not have transpired at all without his participation.

Please review the article as it is now. I hope it is robust enough for you to rescind your objection and let it stand. I would appreciate any feedback you can provide me. Thanks Greg Ostrander (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klammbachwaldbahn

It was a railway. What more do you want. It isn't a wannabe rock star or a model of a mobile phone (of which there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia). --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insignificant? There are very large groups of enthusiasts who would eat you alive for statements like that <VBG> Tell you what if I come across any other forestry railways I'll start an article "Forestry Railways in Austria" and incorporate it into that. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can see your point, and as I said will fold it into a forestry railway article when I come across more similar articles. However this is far from the worst offender I have seen here, additionally the provision of an incline would make it notable in it's class. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Zullo

Hi. Can you explain how Allan Zullo is written like an advertisement? You didn't leave a message on the talk page or anything. I have nothing to do with Allan Zullo, beyond the fact that I read a bunch of his books when I was younger. Zagalejo^^^ 02:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Bongomatic. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Categories on sections?

{{Helpme}} I just made some edits to American Physical Society and Lilienfeld Prize. Specifically, I moved the contents of the latter into the former as they were too scant to warrant a separate article, replacing them with a redirect. However, the Prize article had categories. I left them in the redirect stub as they don't apply to the Society. What is the best way to deal with this? Bongomatic (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and I think it's alright. Chris Wattson (talk) (contributions) (email) 12:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Creature from the Black Lagoon- The Musical

Before deleting it, I think it would be better to search for sources on Universal Studios Hollywood's website or on any news/journalist sites. If the article should be deleted though, it could as well be merged with Creature From the Black Lagoon or Universal Studios Hollywood. Thanks.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi, this is not an appropriate use of rollback, Phil had every right to remove the PROD tag and he shouldn't have been reverted, much less using rollback. Please only use it for vandalism in future, and don't revert removals of PROD tags. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Jerry's Artarama

Hello, would you please tell me why Artarama was nominated for speedy deletion as being "blatant advertising", but a page such as Blick is not? Wikipedia's own guidelines state [1] that "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." The writing style was the same as in other business company stubs, and was objective and non-promotional. If Jerry's Artarama page is to be deleted, to be fair you must also delete the Dick Blick page. The truly objective solution is to keep both pages. Jerry's Artarama is the second largest retail and online art supply store after Dick Blick and has over fifteen retail locations across the country. Please explain your reasons, because the guidelines imply that you were incorrect. I did not create the original article a few years ago, but recreated it this year. Thank you for your attention.PaintSculptCreate (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)PaintSculptCreate (talk)[reply]

Individual pages for Astra satellites

You wrote:

Hi Satbuff, I would like to suggest that you merge all the individual pages for the satellites into the main page for SES Astra, as there is nothing notable about the satellites individually, and the information for each seems to be (a) limited; and (b) parallel in format to all the others. When you're done, blank the articles, and they will be deleted. Bongomatic (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongomatic. Thanks for your interest in my efforts. I disagree that individual pages for the satellites are not merited. There is interest in the individual satellites (more satellites than I added had individual pages previously) and individual referencing in Wikipedia and individual coverage in other media is extensive (perhaps I should cite more of this..?). I think many readers will start with an individual satellite (not go through SES Astra) as it is the satellites that the public 'knows', not SES Astra.

Merging them into the SES Astra page would (a) make that very unweildy (the satellites are not all the same), (b) fill that page with subsidiary information, (c) confuse the 'products' with the organisation (you wouldn't want to merge Cadbury Dairy Milk into Cadbury plc).

I'm sorry that you think each is limited. I can see the benefit of additional information (as it is, I have thought of obtaining a picture for each). The format of the individual pages IS broadly the same (although the information/content isn't) but I believe this to be an advantage (just as Wikipedia works to a format). Though if you think the (common) format should be different, please let me know. Sorry this is long! Satbuff (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Eales

Hi Bongomatic, I removed the words you complained about in the Geoff Eales article, but the advert tag remains. I can't see anythimg that could constitute advertising, so could you remove it, please? Thanks. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bongomatic/Archive 1