User talk:Jog1973

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] hi there!

i'd love to see the ones you'd like to point out to me :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 05:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • see your TALK page Joe

[edit] Movaya Wireless

Concerning Movaya Wireless: Wikipedia has a policy concerning articles which qualify for speedy deletion. In particular, Criteria G11 speaks to articles that read like advertising. Articles may be identified and tagged by any editor for speedy deletion. Wikipedia adminstrators will review these articles and may speedily delete them. Portions of the article Movaya Wireless are taken directly from the "About" page of their website (which would also fall under Wikipedia:Copyright problems and would have to be rewritten) and read like ad copy.

I've noticed that another editor has identified the current re-creation of the article as advertising. Please review guidelines on companies. While it may be that Movaya is a notable company, an article that reads like an advertising brochure is not encyclopedic. I recommend that you remove any material copied from the company's website. — ERcheck (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:jog1973 - I have edited the article to make it simple and factual.

Please note that Wikipedia's policy on verifiable sources. An article on Movaya Wireless should provide verifiable sources to validate its notability. — ERcheck (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, please note speedy deletion criteria A7 — articles on companies should include information on their notability. — ERcheck (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
See WP:CORP for guidelines for inclusion of companies. You may want to consider these guidelines in writing an article on a company. — ERcheck (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, then explain the notability and verifiable sources here:
Ok, godaddy has 14 references. infospace has an article in wired. mediadefender has one in the la times. amy's kitchen reads very neutral point of view, very important on wikipedia (see WP:5P). airimba wireless i sent to article-for-deletion'ed....i haven't looked at the others, but maybe you see now a little bit of what constitutes a company article on wikipedia. read WP:5P, WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM to make sure it isn't deleted again, and change the article into a good encyclopedic piece that can be kept! :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 06:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! You're doing great! It sounds much more neutral point-of-view, and I see you're trying to get the hang of referencing. Some comments: Google Directory isn't exactly a news site, and the Seatle PI is a good start though to that effect. See WP:V for some steps on how to get the juiciest refs (think very notable, like NY Times or Washington Post; very objective like something peer reviewed). If there 'numerous articles' on the subject, poke around and try to get the best you can to reference your article. In the end, this is what will most keep your entry from being deleted. Keep refining! :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem, glad I could help! JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lastly

Im not trying to be a spammer, or blatantly abuse Wikipedia. I simply think an article on this company is legit, and if the article needs work to become legit in your eyes as an editor, I am willing to work it until it is accepted.

and thats just what i love to hear! :D JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 06:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information on companies and business

Since your interest seems to be in contributing information on companies, you might be interested in the WikiProject Business and Economics. For questions, you might consider posting on the project's talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You've added a lot of categories that do not exist. Suggested reading: Wikipedia:Categorization. — ERcheck (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Movaya Wireless

Since User:TruthbringerToronto constantly mistakes Wikipedia for a telephone directory, dropping his name is not only not an endorsement for me, it's pretty much the exact opposite. --Calton | Talk 07:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I've re-added the {{db-spam}} tag -- WP has a three revert limit. Go past that, and you can be blocked from editing. --Calton | Talk 08:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Carlton, Stop adding the db-spam tag; this is NOT spam. This is an article on a company, just like the hundreds of articles on companies in Wikipedia. If you follow the talk here, you will see the issue.


PLease Read the tag. If you objest to the removal you can do so, and an administrator will intervene. just deletingh the tag does not make this issue go away. cheers.Bilbo B 08:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Bilbo and Carlton, I dont believe either of you read up on the TALK or looked at some of the history on this article, that is why I was fighting you on the deletion. Twice already tonight 2 different editors added this to delete, then removed it after discussing with me.

I'm afraid he might be right. Google only turns out about 591 hits, a very low amount for a subject (2,000+ is a good number for me, but there is no firm number). This usually is a good metric for notability, implying that Movaya Wireless just might not be notable enough to have its own article. Perhaps List_of_mobile_network_operators#United_States or List_of_United_States_mobile_phone_companies might be better to home some content about Movaya Wireless, albeit less detailed than a full blown article? JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 08:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, answers.com is actually just a mirror of old wikipedia content (you can't source yourself), dmoz.org is a directory not a source, and blogs are considered original research - biased. Could you add any sources that also exist in print (newspapers)? JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 08:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was deleted as the subject was a non-notable company as per the criteria set out in WP:CORP. Also, blogs are not considered reliable sources. (aeropagitica) 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW. I did not endorse any version of the article. I did point out references to help write an article that was within policy/guidelines; also, that you needed to meet notability criteria, which the article did not at the point that I last saw it. — ERcheck (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/g/User_talk%7EJog1973_1953.html"