User talk:Flatbush52-1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Google Answers
Thank you for your contributions to Refinancing and some other articles. Unfortunately I have to delete3 it: Google Answers is not a valid reference for wikipedia, since the expertise of the author is unknown. Please see wikipedia policy about admissible references, as well as other related policies. `'Míkka 20:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mikkalai
Thanks for the note. Google Answers is a wonderful, reliable, and reputable resource...you should become familiar with it. If you read the articles referenced, I think you'll agree they are all high quality and quite professional. However, I'll familiarize myself more with the policies here before making any more posts to articles. Please let me know if you see this note, as I'm not too clear about how one goes about carrying out a dialogue on things. ThanksFlatbush52-1 21:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. I am afraid I have to disagree with your "wholesale" evaluation. Let me consider an example of your added reference:  for your phrase in "Environmental impact statement" - "Federal agencies produce, on average, about 500 environmental impact statements per year" First of all, your conclusion is incorrect. From your reference I see that it should be clarified: "since early 1990s". The second problem is that it is in fact "since early 1990s up to 2003" (the year of the post).  The third problem is that this "factoid" is rather meaningless: what's it purpose? Wikipedia, we hope, will survive for some time, and it is difficult to uderstand the value of this average for a particular decade. But the above is not related to the the issue I've raised. Once again, we have no reason to believe the expertise of "pafalafa-ga", an anonymous moniker, even if he seems to know things. The only valuable thing in his post is reference to solid documents. They may be referred in wikipedia, but opinions and deductions of  "pafalafa-ga" may not. But to refer to these docs, you have to read and quote them yourself and not rely on quotation of "pafalafa-ga".
 * You have probably heard that some professors forbid students to use wikipedia as reference to their projects (if not, I may direct you to this entertaining reading). Wikipedia itself recognizes that it alone is not a guarantee for information. Only references to reputable sources do. The same goes with "google answers" and numerous other online sources compiled by you don't know who. Just like wikipedia, they are good only as directions to  reliable sources of verifiable information, produced by identified and recognized experts. `'Míkka 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Earning Money Online
A tag has been placed on Earning Money Online, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Earning Money Online and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi-
 * I just wanted to let you know that I have deleted this article. You may not have meant to use it for advertisement, however, the final product was just too spammy. I do recognize, however, that your intentions are good, and we really do value your contributions! Part of the problem with the article was it was essentially an essay, which is discouraged. A good rule of thumb for when you are deciding whether an article might be appropriate, think about whether you would expect to see something like it in a paper encyclopedia. Obviously, because we're online we can have a bigger scope of topics, but the format and idea should be the same. You wouldn't find, for example, an advice essay about making money online in Encyclopedia Brittanica.
 * Please don't be discouraged! I would advise you to take a gander at Your First Article, and if you have further questions, feel free to ask me. L'Aquatique [talk  ]  03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)