Bcornec

Speedy deletion nomination of Project-builder.org

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Project-builder.org requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Bruno Cornec 00:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Project-builder.org

I have nominated Project-builder.org, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project-builder.org. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your article

Mr. Cornec, it is generally inadvisable for people to write about things they're directly affiliated with. Writing about something you created yourself violates our WP:COI guideline. In any case, I have removed the speedy deletion tag from the article and instead initiated a community discussion which will decide whether or not the article is kept. See the message just above this one and feel free to comment there. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Redfish (specification) has been accepted

Redfish (specification), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Responding to your RfC concerning external links

Good morning, Bcornec, and thank you for your work on the Redfish (specification) page. I am GGSloth, hired by BrightLeaf Group as Wikipedia consultant on behalf of DMTF. Below is my formal disclosure of "paid editor" status, as required by Wikipedia.

As such, I greatly appreciate your work on this page. I had hoped that an experienced volunteer editor would answer the RfC, since I too could use some help understanding what " ... may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" means in this instance.

However, no response has come, so I wanted to let you know that I am reading through WP policies and guidelines relevant to external links, and trying to digest them into a list of possible problems. I'll keep you up-to-date on this if you like.

I can suggest two other possible sources of information: talking to Chetsford, the editor who put up the "External Links" flag might be helpful, if that person is not too busy to respond. I am willing to do this, if you prefer, and I'll let you know what happens. The other possibility is to contact the WikiProject External Links, which might have advice to offer, although it's unclear if they actually do that.

I'm confident that one or both of us can correct the problem, if only by trial and error. Please do not feel that I am making this your problem; I'm responding to your RfC mostly because no one else has. I doubt I'm the best person to explain the problems at the moment, but rest assured you are not alone in trying to fix them. GGSloth (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC analysis

Thanks GGSloth for your feedback. After reading again the page, I wonder whether the section "Redfish libraries and tools" is not what lead to that warning. After all, it's just a warning, and I found much more useful to provide direct links to the tools in that section, rather than making redirections to the bottom of the page, which in that case is much less relevant than for quotes cmoing from external articles. So that's why I was looking for possibilities to discuss about the best approach for mentioning tools, but as you underlined, nobody answered :-( I'll copy part of this there.

@Bcornec: You may be right in your analysis, although I don't know enough about Computer Networking to offer advice on that issue. Your approach sounds good to me, though.

My own suspicion is that the Dell, HPE, and Supermicro external links -- which seem related to the "Redfish Support on Server" bullet points -- might be better received by WP as in-line source citations for those bullet points, rather than as external links. But it's little more than a guess. I hope more knowledgeable help volunteers itself soon.

On a different subject, I will be making a suggestion on the Redfish (specification) talk page (after a "paid editor" disclosure) to remove two items from the WIP list. Mike Raineri (co-chair of DMTF's Redfish Forum) provided a little feedback about the page, including, "it looks like a great starting place and very factual," and pointed out that Telemetry and Profiles have been published. Seems noncontroversial and a good place for me to start. Let me know if I can do anything else to help. GGSloth (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bcornec: I'm considering posting this proposed change to the Supermicro link -- remove it from External Links and make it an in-line citation in the Industry Adoption section -- and wanted to let you know first, for comment or correction.

In an attempt to address the "external links" flag, proposing this change:

in Industry Adoption, replace

• Supermicro X10 BMC with minimum FW 3.0 and X11 with minimum FW 1.0

with

• Supermicro X10 BMC with minimum FW 3.0 and X11 with minimum FW 1.0

And remove, from External Links

SuperMicro Redfish ecosystem

Thanks, GGSloth (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@GGSloth: I don't think that will be seen as an improvement in fact. It will un-balance the External Links section for not good reason. When they mention External Links, they don't speak only of the section called External Links on the page, but rather from the fact you use links to non-WP pages, and the reputation that these pages need to have to be seen as good references. I tried to use only very well-known sources, but again after re-reading the page I don't understand exactly why that comment is there in fact. My External Links section points to tools set that would not make sense to have in the article. Thees pages don't explain Redfish better, they support the standard by providing Web or CLI based tools. Maybe I should rename the section alltogether as Redfish Ecosystems in fact... that may avoid the issue.

Bruno Cornec 12:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bcornec: I see your point. It's true that the template doesn't mention the External Links section, so that may not be the problem. And I see now the distinction about tool sets, thanks for clearing that up.

Like you, I am unsure exactly what the problem is. I'd like to invite the editor who added the "external links" template (Chetsford) into this discussion, if that's OK with you. Perhaps we can get more specific information on the problem. GGSloth (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@GGSloth: Yep, that's fine with me.

Bruno Cornec 11:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Invitation was posted to Chetsford's User Talk page. There's a flag there stating the user is taking a "short Wikibreak." Hmm ... GGSloth (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If you click the link on the template it brings up WP:EXT. There, you can read the policies on external links. Among those policies: (a) "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic", (you have five external links in the external links section which is almost unheard of for quality articles of this length) (b) [external links] "should not normally be placed in the body of an article" (you have four external links in the body of the article). Chetsford (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Chetsford, I see where I've been misleading myself. An external link is not defined by being in the "External Links" list, but by taking the reader out of Wikipedia instead of to a references list at the bottom of the Wikipedia page, as an in-line citation does. (a) is clear to me now and (b) refers to the four links just above the Features section.

I'm less clear about how to fix the problems, but I suspect Bcornec will know more. Thank you again for your time and effort. GGSloth (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)