what happens next to clear the "new unreviewed article" panel?
polruan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polruan (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure I understand your question; however, the "new unreviewed article" tag is there to allow fellow Wikipedians to take a look at your article and try to improve it. Once an experienced user has taken a look at it and corrected what needs to be corrected, said tag will be removed.
Neither have I. At the very beginning, I assumed good faith and thought he was just a newbie who didn't understand he was creating new articles, and I hoped he would see the light. But when I saw he kept on, I tagged them per G2 (even though, perhaps, G3 would have been appropriate as well) and warned him.
I did "G6" on the first article: accidental page creation. Then I added a note on his talk page asking if he needed help. Nothing. Except more crap articles. Totally strange. Cheers. — Timneu22 ·talk18:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? it wasn't nominated? Well, I just included in the talk page at least three reasons why it is a notable biography of living person, I hope that should suffice to deter any speedy-deletion-guy. Anyway, thanks for the info, it is my first creation.--Forich (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article was nominated for speedy deletion, honest! ^___^
Ciao! Unfortunately user:Salvatorebruno looks to be tight to any advice, and is continuing to pour here questionable (often useless) material about Tuscany, requiring my continuous intervention and distracting me from more important things. What can we do? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I warned him before, if he were to continue with his behaviour I'd report him on WP:ANI as a case of WP:CIR. I have not yet had time to take a look at his latest edits; however, if he hasn't changed, I'll have no choice but to report him. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing his latest edits, I stumbled upon this article, in this version. Well, I must say that I definitely see improvements: his English is not as bad as before, even though it still needs someone to clean it up, especially because he makes references that a person with an English background would hardly recognise, and he started using categories, as asked.
Even though he doesn't respond to our messages, which is puzzling, he seems to be trying to follow our advice; so I, personally, will wait a little longer before reporting him. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of information would make the article on Betz Airport more complete? I've got the FAA info, I've described it in the text and I've included a photo. It is a small airport in a rural area. Articles with less info are not so flagged. What more can be said about it? An example of an article on a like airport that is more complete would be helpful. Please do leave a response on my talk page. Dwight Burdette (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first let me clarify that a stub tag doesn't mean you wrote a bad article or that your contribution is not appreciated. There are people who watch for stubs to improve, so that tag is a way to increase its visibility in hopes someone will come along and expand it.
Taking a look at other articles about Michigan airports, I see that many have history and facilities sections. But I don't really know how much material there is in reliable sources to improve the article.
Hi Salvio. I'm sorry to tell you that I just blocked Nineteen Nightmares. His comments have made it clear that he intends continuing to monitor the other three users and has no intention of leaving them alone and unfortunately I just don't see what else can be done to resolve this dispute. I am willing to unblock him if he agrees to leave the other users alone and I hope he will make that agreement because I still believe he could become a valued editor here if he can just get rid of this idea he has that he's the WikiPolice and come to an agreement to allow the others to edit in peace. I can understand and share some of his concerns about Dmartinaus's COI editing, but he really needs to accept that he has no standing here to monitor, police and berate them and move onto becoming a valued and constructive editor himself. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know as his mentor. Sarah04:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving my draft article on Mendel Biotechnology to my user subpages. That's where I'd intended to create it. Am I right in thinking that I can play about with it there without it troubling anyone? It's likely to take me some time to gather the material and then learn how to format it correctly. --Ceiteag (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, when you create a draft in your subpage, you have nothing to fear: it isn't going to be nominated for speedy deletion — except in rare cases, such as egregious vandalism or violations of our policy regarding living people and copyright violations —, so you can work on it at your own pace, until it's ready. Once it's ready, then you can also ask for advice on WP:FEED, before moving the page to mainspace. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Salvio. Thanks for the heads-up that my new page might be deleted. I've finally had chance to read and digest the guidelines on notability. I see why the company doesn't warrent its own page, but I believe the information is significant, particularly in relation to several public figures. Would it be more appropriate to move the information to the pages of the people that I've linked to the company? --Ceiteag (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do not cross your bridges before you come to them: the article hasn't been nominated for deletion yet; this gives you time to search for reliable sources. When you're satisfied there are none (you seem very reasonable, so I think I can trust your judgement), you can turn the page in a redirect to the CEO of the corporation, if he has a page of his own or use {{db-g7}} — an admin will come along and delete the page for you, but only if nobody else has significantly edited the article —.
The bits of info you deem significant, particularly in relation to several public figures, can of course be added to their bios, but only if they meet the requirements listed on WP:BLP, especially if they are verifiable — which, once again, requires reliable sources —.
As you'll have gathered by now, Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth and it always requires reliable sources backing up all material that can be disputed and that you want to include.
I don't want to overwhelm you with policies, because I know it can be very difficult to familiarise oneself with the way Wikipedia works, but here you can find a simplified ruleset, sort of a first toolkit that will help you have a good time here. Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Salvio. I just did a google search to check that there isn't any reliable third-party coverage relating the page I created. As it happens, the company's had quite a bit of news coverage over the last 24 hours, so might now meet the notability criteria. It also means that I now have quite a few sources to sift through.
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the necessary guidelines. It is quite a lot to take in, and I'll probably make quite a few mistakes as I'm learning the ropes.--Ceiteag (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article about Thirdlane I created yesterday was marked for deletion. The page was referred by a list on IP PBX software page, which contained links to various other companies with products similar to Thirdlane PBX. I thought that it was ok to make add Thirdlane to the list and create an article describing Thirdlane - it is a unique product (part open source and part proprietary) and is quite widely used. I understand that the guidelines discourage articles about specific companies or products, but from what i can see the articles of a similar kind are more than common, and I can hardly see any harm in Thirdlane being one of them. I am new to Wikipedia - perhaps you could explain the reasons for deletion, or may be we should create the article somehow differently? Aepshteyn (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, this comes a little as a surprise... And you'd be my first adoptee; so, to help me understand this a bit better, I'd need to ask you two questions: what do you expect of adoption and why do you think that could be useful to you? Salvio (Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. I expect nothing from adoption that was not evidenced by your thoughtful willingness to reconsider the flag of my username, upon subsequent review...proving you to be a very even keeled, pensive, and friendly member of Wiki space - with the caveat that you'll assist me in any unforeseen problems I may encounter as an advocate; when it is appropriate to do so, of course. (!)
2. Your expertise seems to be most valuable as I've examined past decisions you've doled out with a splash of humor yet also, consistently within requisite guidelines, to the letter. The light approach is always commendable, no?
Who better than a well-informed, jovial companion to enlist in these Wiki ranks among, my friend?
Alas, if not to adopt me...perhaps you can just keep a watchful eye on this howling kitten. (!)
First of all, do not construe my two questions as a larvated way of dismissing your request. It's just that, as I've never been an adopter, I didn't know what you might expect of me...
Hello Salvio giuliano, thank you for participating in my recent RFA. I have taken all your comments into consideration and will make sure that I do it right if I plan on doing another RFA. Also, please do have a look at the comments made by other editors and myself, regarding this RFA. Thank you again, and have a nice day! Rehman(+)02:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see I have missed you, but I do not think my Italian is up to the challenge of remonstrating with User:Oigres88, who keeps removing the rough translation template and reverting changes to the article. He/she has some good ideas - removing some of the more difficult verbiage - but is also inserting new material that continues to be in very bad English. I've been trying to produce a working translation of the Italian Wikipedia article which others with better Italian skills can then correct and refine, but the creator is getting in the way. I am going to step back now and let him/her continue, but the changes are almost all not improvements and the removal of the template is way, way, way premature. I will now attempt to say that on his/her talkpage, because it looks as if he/she can't read English. But if you should chance to log on again, I'd welcome someone with far greater competence in the language assisting. I only got involved with this article because it was so bad; Italian is not one of my strongest languages. Thank you in advance. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all, I've taken a look at your userpage and I must say I'm impressed by the many languages you can understand!
That said, I'll be glad to assist you. Even though, I tend to find it hard to proofread an English text that has been badly translated from Italian — I'd prefer to have to translate it ex novo —, I'll try, once again, to get through to him... SalvioLet's talk 'bout it!19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for both the compliment and the message! I reached 3R so am leaving the article for at least 24 hours, even though he did restore the template in some form and ask if that was all right, so maybe he's realising that we are trying to help.
I will quite understand if you or someone else starts again and retranslates the article. The problem is the article as it stands is particularly laughably horrid. I really wish Google translate would learn faster from its mistakes. This is terrible. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added new external link to the article
Hi,
I have added Twilight pictures which is an addition to the article,i have not edited any previous information.
Ok, I now see it. There's a problem, however: I assume those images are copyrighted and, as such, cannot be inserted in Wikipedia, unless they meet the strict criteria that you can find here. SalvioLet's talk 'bout it!19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
