User talk:Mathrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. . . . . . . . ____
. . . .,,--` ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ` ' -,
. -`; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯\
.,; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \
(; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;`\
.\; ; ; ; ; ; __,,---,,__ ; ; ; ; ; ;}
. |; ; ; ; ; / . . . . . . . . }; ; ; ; ; /
. .\ ; ; ; / . ,.-., . . ,-., .\ ; ; ;/
. . . `| . . . .`` .\ . . `` . .| )`
. . . . .\ . . ,- .c _, `-, .|
. . . . .`| . . .oz##zo . `
. . . . . .|. \. . . ¯``¯. . ./
. . . . . / -, _ `.¯¯¯ . . ,\ ,
- .` . .\ . - . . `- ¯ /;;\ . .| `'--.,,__
. . . . . \ . . . . . \` \;;;;\` |. . . . . - . ```--_
 . . . . . .\`-,`-., . \ .\;;/ ./ . . ./ ``. . . . . . .` `\
. . . . . . \ . . . . . . \|;;;\/. . . /. . . . . . . y/ . . ..\
. . . . . . .\ . . . . . . .\;/ . . . . . . . . . . /`. . -`. . . \
. . . . . . . .\. . . __ ./ . __ . _____ . y . . . `'. . . .-,
. . . . . . . . . ./``. . ``'" / . .|` \ . . . . . .```` . . .---.,, .\
. . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . |``| . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
. . . . . . . . . -`` .`` . - .¯¯ ```-----,,,._______ . . . ./
 \. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .__ .-`. . . . . . .````
. ` ` \ . . . . . . . __ . . .- - - --` `. . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . .`````` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . T A L K ' S . . . . . . C L O S E D. . . .

Contents

[edit] Waf

Wikipedia isn't here to publish information that hasn't already been covered in a reliable source. If there are no reliable sources (excluding the project's own webpages) that covers Waf, then it is considered original research and it is not notable enough for inclusion here. See Wikipedia's verifiability policy for further information on the standards for inclusion and how content must be verifiable. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See notability guidelines - particularly the "rationale" section: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." Simply saying that a user could Google for the information is not enough - reliable sources must be provided in the article. This is covered in WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What I know or do not know about the topic is irrelevant. WP:V is policy, and it states:
| Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
If the article does not prove that the subject is notable, citing reliable source, then it fails inclusion criteria. Right now, the only reference provided is the website of the software. That really doesn't prove anything. I could easily write a program and create a website for that program, but it certainly wouldn't be Wikipedia material. The fact is, articles need other sources to prove notability.
Please note that I am not listing the article for deletion at this time. All I have done is tagged the article indicating that it doesn't provide sufficient sources. If you do not want to or cannot do this yourself, feel free to just leave the tag there for another editor to review and perhaps improve. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attn mr mathrick

why did you move Kagetsu Tohya to Kagetsu Tohya without discussing it

please reply

[edit] attn mr mathrick II

Please read review comments in the "discuss" area. Also, I am not questioning whether the article is clear to yourself after your rewrite. However, it is not acceptable to most reviewers. I still suggest you put your article to your personal blog and have only a link in the restored article (and the "dependency injection" article as well) to express your different opinion. Thanks!

Voretustalk 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SocialPicks

I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)