User talk:Snowycats/2016/August

Article Review Question
Hi Snowcats,

Thank you for looking at my article recently. I wanted to ask exactly what you meant by your comment "Do not resubmit until you add more sources"?

Specifically, I have added new sources and new information every single time I have submitted this article. When I look at other, approved trade association articles that have half of the amount of sources that I do or, in some cases, not a single source outside of first party content, I wonder what the criteria being set here is? There are many more sources on my article when compared to comparable organizations, so how have I not gone above and beyond the standard that is already set? Can you give an exact number of sources that Wikipedia finds "acceptable"? I am not sure what is more verifiable than the organizations I have cited from.

Thanks again,

Sorttou (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

, perhaps I can explain a little.
 * First, it is possible that you have a conflict of interest--if so, see our rules at WP:COI . If so, you need to declare it, and , if the COI is financial in any way, you need to follow the specific rules at our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure
 * Second, it is still the case that too many of the references are either from their own site or are trivial.
 * Third, It would help greatly if you used a clearer way of referencing. I think you have been using cite web ,but for references from a newspaper pr magazine, you should use the cite news or cite journal formats.
 * Most important, a promotional article is not merely one selling something, but one that says what the organization would like people to know or what members of the organization would want to know; a proper encyclopedia  article tells the general public what they would be likely to want to know having heard of the organization, minimizing internal detail -- there's a difference. When you've revised, and made any necessary declaration, please notify me on my talk page to have a look at it.  DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

NPP
Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but New Pages Patrol should never be attempted without first reading and thoroughly understanding WP:NPP where you will also learn that this task is absolutely not for beginners. With just over 200 mainspace edits however, you now qualify to enroll at the WP:CVUA where you can learn all about vandalism patrol - an area where we need as much help as possible. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been doing NPP for a long time now and I have read over the information many times. Thanks for the information, to verify what I already know! Have a good day. Snowycats (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You haven't  been doing  anything  on  Wikipedia for a long  time, you  have  minimal  number of edits to  the project  and even fewer to  mainspace.  You have not  read WP:NPP, and if you  have, you  have only  glossed over it because you  are missing  essential  elements of it  and causing  what  are likey  to  become perma-tagged articles. Even the less important  project  at  AfC needs more experience, more qualifications, and more maturity.  I  won't  ask  you  again and when the new rule comes into  force for NPP you won't  be eligible for the task. I  am always happy  to  help  new and very  young users, and I'm well known for it, but not when faced with uncollaborative comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can explain a little further. 1/ See my response above to a user for the sort of detail that is necessary to give beyond the templates.  2/See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamila Awad for an explanation of why you should not have accepted that draft. Similarly for the Prod on Arteis hospital. These types of articles almost always end up deleted.  Creekside at Bethpage, a housing development, has already been speedy deleted as advertising by another admin. . --  DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

hi david,

i tried to be brief and yet add some more context to the definition of "buddhi yoga". i have re-submitted the same for your review. i need your help to understand exactly what is the minimum required content to make the subject interesting enough for readers to starting discussing the same.

buddhi yoga is a part of karma yoga, it is the yoga of thoughts and perspectives. it is rarely discussed but hugely important from the perspective of discussions on "the yoga of engagement in social life" or "karma yoga".

looking forward to interacting with you, and thank you for your time and co-operation.

regards, aman gopal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsureka (talk • contribs) 05:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Buddhi Yoga - Review of a new wiki submission (my first)
hi david,

i tried to be brief and yet add some more context to the definition of "buddhi yoga". i have re-submitted the same for your review. i need your help to understand exactly what is the minimum required content to make the subject interesting enough for readers to starting discussing the same.

buddhi yoga is a part of karma yoga, it is the yoga of thoughts and perspectives. it is rarely discussed but hugely important from the perspective of discussions on "the yoga of engagement in social life" or "karma yoga".

looking forward to interacting with you, and thank you for your time and co-operation.

regards, aman gopal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agsureka (talk • contribs) 05:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)