User talk:Onlybumblebeescanfertilizeredcloverplants

Welcome!
Hello, Onlybumblebeescanfertilizeredcloverplants, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Peter Richtarik, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter Richtarik


A tag has been placed on Peter Richtarik 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 credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Response:
I was not done with the article yet. You have acted too fast. Or perhaps I should not 'save' before done? I work by doing many small changes and saving them as I do them. You have marked this for deletion way before I was done, so of course there were still issues.

Onlybumblebeescanfertilizeredcloverplants (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peter Richtarik


The article Peter Richtarik has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Adam9007 (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Peter Richtarik. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Response:
I need to study the official style in detail. Can you tell me what exactly was the issue so that I learn from my mistake?

In particular, how should I refer to external sources if I want to make a specific reference in the main text? A long list of references in an "External Sources" section, without them being referred to, does not seem useful.

Onlybumblebeescanfertilizeredcloverplants (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have made some edits and tried to explain in the edit summaries why and point to relevant guidelines. Please ask if you have further questions on those. On the above, you are correct - a long list of external links is unhelpful, and in fact what is there currently pointing to the subject of the article's official website and a scholar profile is probably enough for that section. Within the article itself, specific pieces of information should be referenced to reliable sources (third-party is preferable - i.e. not connected to the subject of the article). These sections: WP:CITEFOOT and WP:CITEHOW should help you in how to do that. Once a source has been used in the article, it should not also be included in the external links section. I hope that helps. Melcous (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have added a number of 3rd party references, and did some more corrections and improvements. I have removed the issue template - if any issues remain, let me know and I will fix them. I am trying to learn how to write good wiki articles on this example, so that I can do a good job on other new articles in the future. Onlybumblebeescanfertilizeredcloverplants (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again and thanks for your message.
 * * If you look at the page Template: Infobox academic it clearly says under doctoral students "Only those notable enough for WP articles." The same is true for notable students - but this would cover any students not just doctoral students (e.g. a teacher who had a student in their class who went on to become famous!).
 * * Similarly it says that doctoral advisor should not be named unless mentioned in the body of the article, which means it would need to be sourced and notability demonstrated in the body, and then could be included in the box.
 * * Third party references are definitely needed, but they should be reliable sources - ideally you are looking for published books, journal articles or news items which talk about Richtarik and his work. The references you added to people's websites on which he was named don't really say anything substantive about him, particularly not as the lead of the article says, that is known/a leading scholar in a particular area. It might be helpful to look at WP:OR which talks about original research - the idea is that editors here do not use sources to draw or prove their own conclusion (e.g. "Here are a bunch of places where he spoke, that proves that he is a leading speaker on this"), but rather to find sources that themselves draw the conclusions (e.g. a book that says "Richtarik is a leading speaker on this topic"). I hope that makes sense, I'm just trying to give an example. And yes, ideally sources should be in the article, not the lead. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)