User talk:Tariqrs

Tariq Saleh article
Hi Tariq. You deleted some tags I put on this article without addressing the concerns I raised or responding to my message on the talk page. I could just go in and make the changes I think need making, but I would really prefer to work with you to bring it up to acceptable standards for Wikipedia if we can. For now, I've just restored the tags.

You might also check out our welcome page, our core policies and our guideline on editing with a conflict of interst (since I'm guessing from your user name and the contents of the article that this is an auto-bigraphical article at the moment. -- SiobhanHansa 18:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tariq, thanks for responding. When your first exposure to editing Wikipeia is creating an article about yourself you can get kind of thrown in at the deep end.  So I want to start by mentioning that we strongly recommend you don't create or develop articles about yourself.  Correcting mistakes here and there is fine, but when you get into trying to decide what should and shouldn't get covered, or how to word things we have found auto-biographers have a hard time maintaining a neutral point of view, and they can find the Wikipedia process frustrating and upsetting.  That's just a word of caution.  Our conflict of interest guideline doesn't prohibit you editing, but you bust stick to our core policies.


 * Particular relevant in the case of article content are neutral point of view and verifiability. At the moment the content has no third party sources backing up assertions of how good you are!  Which isn't to say you aren't good, just that we need to be reflecting what other, relaible published sources say about you.  In particular you are going to need to show that you are notable in some way or the article is likely to be deleted.  Our normal criteria for people can be found here.  From what there is in the article so far, I don't think you meet this.

Sources that show your notability or verify assertions in the article need to be in appropriate publications whose opinion/writing can be considered reliable. Passing mentions or puff pieces, most web-only publications and self-published materials (such as your current sources) are only acceptable for non-contentious facts, they don't show notability nor can they be used to assert you are particularly well respected in some area. Sources do not need to be online or in English (though if you have them, they are preferred), but you must provide a proper citation so that an independent person could look up the reference themselves. That's the most important bit - if we can get those sources, the article can build from there.


 * The concerns I have over tone are still there. In general it just doesn't read like an encyclopedia article.  From my reading, the thing that's important about you is your journalistic work, but it gets very little attention and it's buried at the bottom.  We need to cover the way in which you have significantly impacted the world, not the way in which you have experienced the world.  That you did well in class and had lots of outside activities really isn't encyclopedic (unless it's gets written about a lot by good national newspapers or something - then we'd have to re-think).  The trivia section should go - it reads like a fan page for a movie star, not an encyclopedia article on a journalist.


 * I hope that explains things a bit more. Like I say, you've been thrown in the deep end a bit, so it's not surprising if things take a little time to work out.  Start by taking a look at the notability guidelines and thinking about what reliable sources you know of that we can use.  Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tariqrs. A couple of jouralist articles with good article status: Hrant Dink and Pauline Kael. -- SiobhanHansa 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)