User talk:Harryapostol

Welcome!

Hello, Harryapostol, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! I will try and take a look at the Accurist page as you continue to work on it. I believe what you have done so far is very good work. All the best, fish &amp;karate 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

accurist page
Hi Harry, I like Accurist watches. And John Cleese. :-)

At the url below I recorded what I found at each citation in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Accurist

Read what I found about the citations.

I'm was surprised to get a messages from you. It implies that you're a real person! :-)  From the content of the article I was truly convinced that the article was written by a SEO spammer. Wikipedia requires the presumption of good will so I'm assuming you're not a spammer.

Please read what i wrote on the accurist talk page about why each citation was removed. And pay special attention to the citations that were not removed! You'll learn more from them.

Here are my hints about citations: Most of your citations were not from credible sources so learn what a credible source is. Hint - any website that has an article about something they sell, and the article has no author or source mentioned? Not credible. Why not? because its just advertising or marketing material. if it has an author - who is it? if they work for the company, or a PR or communications firm, .. its just more advertising. Only if the author is a recognized expert in the field would I consider content from a retailing web site, with some exceptions. Every rule or guideline has exceptions, especially here on WP. :-)

WP policy is that content has to be verifiable, and that sources have to be credible. Read the WP articles about these things and try to absorb as much of it as possible. then learn how to apply that information Start by reading these two: [|Identifying Reliable sources] []

Well known newpapers have policies about having their articles fact checked before they are published. They even have people called "fact checkers" whose job it is to .... check facts! So major Newspapers have an established history of credibility.

Academic papers and Scientific Journal: be careful here - SEO content farmers are starting to forge formats that appear to be scientific journals, so make sure that you trace the source of anything that looks like it comes from a journal all the way back to its real source. CIa World factbook - generally ok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Shared_Resources  List of sources, and some non-sources at the bottom.

OK, thats a start. found your message to me late at night but felt i owed you a response after such major alteration of your article. So excuse me if content here is not too coherent.

re adding stuff back in - if its verifiable, please do add stuff back in. if you can find a credible citation for it all the better!

In fact you can go back to an earlier version of the article and copy text from there to add back into the page. But.. if you're going to do citations, please do better ones. :-)

Jjk (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

more on accurist
hi Harry, just got your latest message and I see the you're trying to say that because the other watch articles are using the company's own pages as citation sources, that it will be okay to do so for the Accurist article.

Interjection: today's response was written with a speech recognition system because my hands are not working today. Unfortunately when using the speech recognition system you tend to get a stream of consciousness kind of blast which is, in my case always way too long. So I want you to know that the most important part of what I have said you today is down near the bottom of the article. So focus on that part and don't pay overmuch attention to the rest of it. We now return you to your mainline text! :-)

Okay at the top of your talk page here you will see that there is a reference to an article about How_to_develop_an_article

in that article under section 2.1.1, "finding relevant articles" you'll find information about Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliability for sources. You should read those 2 articles carefully to see that your references and citations meet the criteria they establish.

My perspective on using articles about a company's products that are published by the company is that there is an inherent conflict of interest. If it is a marketing or sales or advertising article it's going to be inherently biased in a perspective it presents about the product.

If it's reference material, such as the documentation for Intel's CPU chips that they give to electrical engineers so they know how to design components that will be compatible with the CPU, that's a different story. That information is published as a technical reference to the CPU and those reference documents have to be as accurate as they can possibly be made in order for the product to be used. as a matter of side interest those reference manuals always have errors in them and the errata are always being published in catching up for them.

I have not had a chance to look at the pages of the other watch brands that you mentioned, but in the end it is your decision whether to include something or not but remember you have to try to make your citations meet with Wikipedia's policies on those.

One of Wikipedia's policies is that if an editor is going to put deleted material back in that they have to have a citation for that material.

I wonder if it would be simply more expedient to put the text you want in and not add a citation for it unless you can find a verifiable or reliable one?that way you'd be able to put your content into the article without having the citations being examined. Although that conflicts with the burden of proof policy for putting material back into an article after it has been deleted.

below here is the shortcut to the Wikipedia article on verifiability. In an article it talks about when reliable sources are needed, and it also talks about, a little further down how to tell whether something is a reliable source. A suggestion read that article very carefully and closely. It is really important if you want to have your citations look good.

PS I just want you to know that what I wrote you today was written using a speech recognition system that I have to use sometimes because of nerve damage I have. And that means there are probably a series of misrecognized words in the text. So if you run across a portion of what I wrote today that simply doesn't make any sense, please keep that in mind. Sometimes speech recognition systems to really wonderful accurate translations and sometimes they just go to heck in a handbasket.

Also I want you to know that you should not take any of what I have said as an attack or criticism of you. Frankly, if I could I would go back and not do any of the editing that I did on your article. I didn't realize it was somebody's 1st article, so I want to same very sorry about that. If that had happened to my 1st article I would be very discouraged and I don't want that to happen to you. So I may be very busy for the next few weeks working on a trial won't have time to look at any of this.

So I think you should go ahead and do what you think works best for the article, and says the things that you think need to be say about Accurist. There is always time later to deal with anything that comes up.

So hang in there, and don't sweat the details! :-)  Jjk (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)