User talk:Khochman

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 my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Just H 21:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

The Nibble
Hi,

First of all I'll point you to a couple of wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays which may be of interest to you.


 * What wikipedia is not
 * Notability
 * Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
 * Verifiability
 * No original research
 * Neutral point of view
 * Conflict of interest guidelines

The first of these gives some indication of the kind of things which shouldn't be/happen on wikipedia including things such as self promotion and advertising, part of this defines a scope for what we include and what we don't include. Part of that is wrapped up in the notion of notability. This tends to set a line based on if the subject will be of significantly "broad" interest, often boiling down to is it interesting enough for multiple independent reliable sources providing non-trivial coverage. As you can understand this sort of scope will say things of apparent like kind may not both be appropriate for inclusion (For instance Bands, The Beatles are of a broad interest and certainly have received a reasonable amount of coverage elsewhere they are included, contrast with a local band who perform in their garage, these are unlikely to qualify) A common argument seen in some of our deletion debates is you have X so you must keep Y. This is false X may itself fail the inclusion criteria, just no one has got around to removing it or tidying it up yet. i.e. Don't assume that since we have articles you believe are similar doesn't automatically make yours valid. This also nicely meets some of our core policies, verifiability and No original research. Wikipedia is not intended to be a primary source of information, it is important that the material we have here can be verified with reference to established sources, the no original research part also covers not taking a few primary sources and constructing an argument or view point, again we would then be becoming the source of that argument or view point. Next onto neutral point of view, this also coincides with WP:NOT where wikipedia is not a soapbox, wikipedia strives to supply a balanced view point based on the prevalence of those points of view. Hand in hand with this is our conflict of interest policy, if you are heavily involved in something there is a good chance that your biases are going to interfere with maintaining that neutral point of view.

For most it not all of these it is irrelevant if you are a commercial concern or not.

Onto the specifics of the article itself. The general tone was not encyclopedic. A large proportion of the article was nothing to do with "The Nibble", but things like defining foodies, gourmet food etc. If these are significant we should have article on them, as it is this just read like a cut and paste of advertising copy promoting the content of the magazine (indeed it claims just to be a copy of some material...). The small proportion about the magazine itself was to define an "Editorial Mission", again this reads as simple advertising for it. The article is unsourced (apart from a reference to itself) failing verifiability, most certainly not neutral point of view and in my opinion that non-neutrality is to the extent of it merely serving as promotional material. --pgk 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. - ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link,  you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Nunquam Dormio 06:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Spamming of http://spam.thenibble.com
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, 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:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. --Hu12 22:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)