User talk:DominicConnor

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Paul Wilmott has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline 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. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLotbArQKDY (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. 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, constructive, 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) 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of "peter carr"
A tag has been placed on "peter carr" requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. noisy  jinx  huh? 10:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Carr
No need to apologise - it takes some time to learn the way around here. I see you have been given a Welcome message above, but it's a rather overpowering one: I recommend WP:My first article as a good starting point - that article, and links from it, will tell you most of what you need to know. You should read the policy on WP:Biographies of living persons, too.

Two important points are:


 * WP:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth&mdash;what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."


 * WP:Notability - Wikipedia doesn't have articles about anything or anyone; the test is, have other people, independent of the subject, thought him, or it, important and interesting enough to write about, i.e. is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and press releases - those can be cited for verification, but don't help establish notability.

As you have found out, unreferenced articles that don't indicate notability can be weeded out swiftly - new articles come in rather faster than one a minute, so the initial scan has to swifter and more ruthless than one would ideally like; also there is currently a bit of a panic because the backlog of unreferenced BLPs (biographies of living persons) is over 43,000 articles - so we are particularly keen not to add to that heap!

You can preserve an unfinished article without posting it by doing Select all/Copy in the edit window and pasting into Notepad or any word processor, or you can make a draft in your user space. In the edit screen you get when you first create an article, there is a box of advice at the top: the second-to-last bullet point, starting "You can also start your new article... " gives a link to do that.

Last point: we don't put quotes round a title, as you did: you maybe did that because you found there was already a Peter Carr page. You will have to think of a title like "Peter Carr (financial analyst)", or whatever is appropriate, and then maybe we will need a Disambiguation page to sort them out.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:33, 18 February 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

More advice
(the message just above this came from a "Bot", an automatic system. There are quite a few, but you can tell them because their names end with "bot".)

No, you don't need to come back to me when you have a draft article; I am not particularly an authority on article writing. You could post a request at WP:Requests for feedback. If it is about a notable subject and referenced from reliable sources it will be better than 95% of new articles. When you put it in it will be looked at by the (unofficial) New Page Patrol who may add "Maintenance templates" saying things like "Notability doubtful" or "Needs wikifying" or "has not been added to any categories"; don't be alarmed by those, you can take them as hints for improvement, or they may attract other editors to help. I should mention that it is a fundamental principle that nobody owns any article - others can and will edit it.

There are a lot of standards for article structure and layout, but you can pick them up as you go along. Some useful links, which will lead on to others: and the three key content policies: One useful technique is to look in the lists of WP:Featured articles and WP:Good articles to see if you can identify articles similar to the one you plan to write, that you can study as a model.
 * WP:BETTER - Writing better articles
 * WP:CITE - how to add references
 * WP:MOS - the Manual of Style
 * WP:MOSBIO - ditto for biographies
 * WP:BLP - Biographies of living persons
 * WP:Verifiability
 * WP:No original research
 * WP:Neutral point of view

I had better stop - these lists of useful guidelines could go on indefinitely, and rather than try to learn it all it is better to plunge in and start. Even if your article gets deleted you can always resubmit it once you deal with the problems identified

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 20 February 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages can confuse readers, and are overall not helpful to the Wikipedia project; furthermore, blanking a page is not the same as deleting it.

If the article you blanked is a duplicate of another article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate revision. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please use the appropriate deletion process. Jusdafax  19:06, 1 March 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicole El Karoui
A tag has been placed on Nicole El Karoui requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  ttonyb (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary
Just to let you know, it's unnecessary to add a new section which covers something already explained in an existing section (except for the intro which summarises the rest of the article). I refer in particular to this edit where you added information on the BCA case even though the section just above that already covered the case and in greater detail except for not mentioning the BCA lost. If you feel a new section is needed, split the information off from the existing section. In addition, your addition was not WP:NPOV as the BCA would likely dispute that they are using "British libel laws to suppress criticism of questionable medical claim". It's fine to present this as SAS's POV, but it should not be presented as factual (the Simon Singh article of course presents the viewpoints of additional groups with the POV). Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Entertainment economics
I noted your edits to Nassim Nicholas Taleb. My mission is enter into the historical record individuals who have made significant contributions to the economic study of creative industries. Most of them are still living, but are at retirement age. They unfortunately do not have a fair representation on the Internet, although their research is well documented in academic literature (which are not freely accessible via the Internet). Please take a look at my first bio, Arthur De Vany. De Vany is a close associate of Taleb, and many of his studies of probability and uncertainty are related. Thanks. Allenwlee (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)