Jamrogers
|
COI edit
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Tiger avon, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm now sure this is not conflict of interest. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Tiger avon edit
A tag has been placed on Tiger avon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Tiger avon edit
I have nominated Tiger avon, 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/Tiger avon. 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. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you edit
The article you created: Tiger avon may be deleted from Wikipedia.
There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.
Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:
- Find sources for Tiger avon : google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.
Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 |
 |
- 1. If your page is encyclopedic, list the page on Article Rescue Squadron by adding:
- {{rescue}}
- below
- <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> on the Tiger avon page.
- You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
- 2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)
 |
 |
- 3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
- 4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.
If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The thing about articles here... edit
They have to be notable and they have to be verifiable. Take Tiger avon as an example. The car is hot,looks like a great track day car, probably a terrifying road car, That doesn't make it notable, it just makes it fun.
So I have something which you may want to read. if you have the patience to build a car you have the patience to make an article that will survive:
This page in a nutshell: This is an essay, intended for new editors, to help them to understand things at Wikipedia If you are to have an enjoyable time here adding articles and editing articles you need to understand how the place works. It doesn't matter about how it, perhaps, ought to work, nor about how you want it to work. What matters is how it works. Once you understand this then you will be able to add new articles to your heart's content, confident that they will survive.
I'm afraid this means a bit of reading for you. Look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not first. Look especially at Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Once you understand this then you have pretty much the entire trick to it.
It means that just adding a new article is insufficient. Wikipedia does require some work from its contributors. Creating an article with minimal information, providing no other citations, and doing no other work is doomed to failure.
To create a successful article there really should be:
- notability of the topic that is the subject matter of the article. This is non-negotiable. Read Wikipedia:Notability.
- citations to the topic from reliable sources. Check the definition of reliable sources, and learn how to use the CITE facilities in the edit window. You can add a parameter |quote= to the cite before you save it and use a relevant snippet of the item you are citing, too.
- We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42
- For a living person we have a higher standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS
- Do not forget a section for References ==References== and put in it the text {{Reflist}} to receive the things you cite.
- wikilinks to other articles. An article that is a dead end is sometimes reasonable, but usually there are useful places to link to. Check that the destination is the article you expect, do not just create a wikilink and hope for the best.
- wikilinks to the article you have created from other articles. This means that the article is not "orphaned" and that others will find it.
- inclusion of the article in the most relevant category (or categories). Read Wikipedia:Categorization.
- If a short article, deploy {{Stub}} in the article, or, better, deploy the best possible stub tag. Read Wikipedia:Stub.
One very important thing is to "let go" once you have posted the article. The only time it is "yours" is when it's in your head. The moment you place it on Wikipedia it becomes "everyone's" Letting go of your baby is hard. Read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. On Wikipedia we don't mother articles, we father them. Or we do that if we want to stay sane. Don't wrap the article in warm towels, send it out to graze its knees! Edit it further, yes, of course, but you have released your child to go and play outside. Watch it from a distance and just correct things when absolutely essential.
Please never, not ever, confuse the truth that you know and are 100% certain about with verifiable facts. Even if you know{{OR}} the colour black to be{{cn}} black, unless there is a citation for it, the obvious{{cn}} truth that it really{{cn}} is black still has no place here. Indeed a statement that Black is White[1][2][3] with a citation in a reliable source that this is so takes absolute precedence over the truth, Wikipedia is based upon citations and citable, verifiable facts, not upon truth, because it is an encyclopaedia, and, rightly or wrongly, that is what an encyclopaedia does.
Useful vs Notable edit
I know you will appreciate the distinction. Very many celebrities are notable, almost none are useful. The reverse is true of many tools.
The problem Wikipedia has with things which are useful is that it is not a compendium of useful things. Indeed many notable things (celebrities!) are wholly useless, but they have articles because they pass WP:GNG.
There is a trick to getting articles accepted in such a manner that they reman here. The trick is to demonstrate WP:N, never usefulness. Sometimes that means cutting a lot of genuinely useful material from an article to concentrate only on the items that make it notable. For genuinely useful things notability can be found, usually, given time.
We expect people to go to the source for things that are useful but not notable. That also means that an article about Foo has to concentrate on the notability of Foo, with the assumption that folk will be inspired to visit foo.com to discover the heady delights of rolling about in Foo.
How to plan edit
It's pretty formulaic, a process:
- Find references, good ones. WP:42 ones
- Select the facts from those references that you wish to use (you will cite the facts with those references WP:CITE is your friend here)
- Create a storyboard from those facts
- Using WP:AFC use the article wizard to start a new draft. It is not mandatory, but it guides you
- Write very neutral, flat prose, citing the references for the facts
- Double check your work and submit the draft when happy
- While awaiting review, continue to enhance your work
Note that an inability to find references means the draft is unlikely to be accepted (0.9 probability). We want new articles here, and we try hard to maintain high standards.
In conclusion edit
Doing these things, even imperfectly, means that others are likely to be kindly disposed to the new article, and, if it is about a notable topic, likely to expand it. Even if they do not expand it the survival of the article is enhanced because it is likely to be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. This is because it is a useful article since it gives information. It is insufficient for an article simply to exist, it must have value.
Things "ought to have articles here." I hope you understand that every editor here thinks that things ought to have articles here, too, even those who propose articles for deletion. There must, though, be initial article quality. That initial article may be very short, but, even in extreme brevity, must meet the guidelines, and must have the building blocks from which it may be expanded alongside genuine and verifiable notability. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If those building blocks are not present and the article is not about a notable thing, and has no verifiability from reliable sources then the article has no value to anyone, however well-written it is. Read Wikipedia:No original research.
I truly hope this helps you understand how to start to create good articles and enjoy being here. You may have had a baptism of fire and learnt that it is not a gentle place. Working within the rules can be rewarding. Trying to push the envelope always fails.
Apart from taking constructive comments on board and learning your trade here, realise that this is a complex place, and not always very kind. The only thing to take personally here is praise. Everything else is fluff and flummery and background noise.
These are my thoughts. You may disagree, so may others. That's fine, that is part of what Wikipedia creates - we work together. If you disagree, please let me know by using User talk:Timtrent/A good article and we can discuss it.
References edit
- ^ "Circle of Sophistry". National Federation of the Blind. Retrieved 2013-11-18.
White, as everyone knows, is the absence of color, and black is the opposite. Yet, what we call black reflects no light waves at all and is, thus, the absence of color—while what we call white (again to quote the dictionary) is: "The reflection of all the rays that produce color." Therefore, the logic is inevitable: black is white, and white is black.- ^ "Black-Is-White - Trailer - Cast - Showtimes". The New York Times. Retrieved 2013-11-18.
- ^ McCutcheon, George Barr. Black is white. Open Library. OL 7113506M. Retrieved 2013-11-18.
It takes a bit of reading, but the main thing the Tiger avon article needs is good sourcing. With a bit of research I'm pretty sure you can achieve that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
February 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Tiger Avon has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://www.jamstigeravon.blogspot.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Tiger Avon do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://www.jamstigeravon.blogspot.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)