User talk:Omega-collector

Welcome!
Hello, Omega-collector, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Unspecified source/license for File:Omega Marine Chronometer 1516.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Omega Marine Chronometer 1516.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First impressions of Omega Marine Chronometer
Hello —

I'm glad we now have an article on this historic instrument, thank you!

I realize that this is still a brand-new article, less than 24 hours old, and despite looking so polished, may still have the occasional rough edge to be addressed. Rather than trying to fiddle myself, in any major way, with a work-in-progress, may I mention some issues here?


 * In being so enthusiastic, the prose seems a bit promotional, using terms like “unrivaled” and “revolutionary”. Mentioning that it is one of very few models of wristwatch to meet the standards of a Marine Chronometer is, of course, essential, as that is its signature achievement and the source of its name; but it might not be necessary to repeat that twice in the introduction.  {


 * By the way, was Omega the first to fit Marine Chronometer accuracty into a wristwatch? or at least into a wristwatch in regular production?  If you run into a reliable source to confirm that, it would be a nice addition to the article.


 * You've documented each source in its entirety, each time it's cited, which is not wrong but which really isn't necessary. There are at least two styles of references well supported by Wikipedia which only need one full description of each source, each of which can then be cited as many times as appropriate.  The style I would usually choose for this is named references; the other style that comes to mind is short citations (which then, in turn, refer to full citations).  There may be others.  The choice is mostly one of personal preference.  This is definitely a lower priority than perfecting the prose content of the article, but it's something to keep in mind to make the job of editing a bit easier.


 * The images included in the article are abundant, are of high quality, and seem to cover the subject very well, from rare factory prototypes through production models, including variations and derivatives. All of that is wonderful, and exactly what one would hope for in a complete article, but ...


 * Wikipedia has a history of (usually well-intentioned novice) editors copying images from other Web sites and uploading them here for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. I couldn't guess how many real-world attorneys have contacted the Wikimedia parent organization about copyright violations, but I do know that today Wikipedia has strict rules about images and copyrights.


 * For this article, you've uploaded eight images and tagged them as your original work, identifying yourself as the copyright holder. The excellent quality of the images suggests the work of a professional photographer.  Those images cover (if I've counted correctly) six different examples of this “exotic” timepiece, including two (of the five) especially-rare factory prototypes.  There will almost certainly be challenges to your claim that these are original images for which you hold the copyright.


 * Personally, I know that an enthusiastic adult collector could have six (or more) of these chronometers in their lifetime collection, at once or over time, and that taking high-quality photographs of such a museum-quality collection (or commissioning such photography) would not be unusual at all, and may even be a requirement for proper insurance. But the number of such high-end collectors is small, and, for Wikipedia, is overwhelmed by the much larger number of youthful users uploading images of their favorite television celebrities taken from media Websites without regard to ownership or copyright.  I suspect that most Wikipedia editors, seeing such professional photographs of rare items, will find it more plausible that they were copied from elsewhere.  You might want to think about ways to verify your ownership of those images, an area where I don't have personal experience from which to draw suggestions.

Again, thank you for creating this article. There are a few minor tweaks that I feel I can make myself, but that shouldn't cause any disruption to your good work.

Unician &nabla; 19:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omega Electroquartz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IWC, Piaget and Rado. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Watch, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 21:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Please provide sources with your claims. These sources need to be independent of Omega for any exceptional claims. --Neil N  talk to me 21:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Omega Chrono-Quartz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)