Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 960

Archive 955

←

Archive 958

Archive 959

Archive 960

Archive 961

Archive 962

→

Archive 965

Creating an article at Wiki

Hello: I tried to create an article at Wiki and it was rejected. I was told my subject did not have enough accreditation's. I would assume a singer/songwriter and published author would qualify. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Dina and welcome to the Teahouse. Since anyone can be a singer, songwriter or published author these days, we have specific notability guidelines which you can find at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I hope this helps.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

New Article Nenolute Technology

Recently, I have written an article about the technology of drug delivery system. This technology will help the entire cardiologist in the word. I want to know why the submission was declined by User:Dreamy_Jazz. I have mentioned the External links to verify the details. Skgacharya (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. As explained at the top of your draft and on your talk page, the article was not adequately supported by reliable sources. Please click that link for more information.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Skgacharya, I declined Draft:Nanolute Technology as you did not address Ravensfire's concerns which lead your article being moved to the draft space - that is, you did not add more references. I have added "Citation needed" next to the text that needs citations. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dreamy_Jazz: you need to start by deciding what subject you're writing an article about. The first sentence of your draft does not make this clear. Maybe it's a company (whose name is variously given as "Nanolute Technology", "NANOLUTE Technology", and "nanoluté"), or maybe it's a technology used by that company. Then you need to establish that your chosen subject is notable, by using references to reliable independent published sources that discuss your chosen subject. At least you've avoided using the word "solutions", always a giveaway that the writer is a PR person. Maproom (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Skgacharya Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Maproom I checked there is nothing with "solution" Only the dissolution were used in the advantage of the drug background details.

Dreamy Jazz I want to talk with you or any experience Wikipedian/person but still not understood the right way to talk or chat.

Skgacharya (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

First, Skgacharya is author, not Dreamy. To Skgacharya - you can go to other editors' Talk pages to have a discussion. Not private, but less public than a discussion here. A clinical trial without a control group is not acceptable evidence. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

can i edit stuff

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Daboss$$$1234567896483 (talk • contribs)

@Daboss$$$1234567896483: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you are welcome to make edits, and we welcome your participation. If you want to learn how to do this and a little more about how Wikipedia works, there is a new user tutorial you can use. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That said, edits like the ones you have made thus far are considered disruptive. I would ask you to not continue to make such edits. If you are interested in editing as you claim, please learn more about it first. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

orifice calculator

Hi, I have added a link to the orifice plate calculator that I developed a long time ago. It is an online calculator free for everybody. Subscribed users have additional features like export, one click unit change, etc. I think that my calculator for orifice plate is the best one free calculator for that purpose on the web. As the link is canceled and deleted I have only one question - is it really based on the full and deep analysis on its functionality or is just quick decision based on some general terms. If I can explain more on its purpose and if I need to prove that calculation is correct than I would like to continue with this. If not, if we are talking about some general terms, it is pointless to waste more time on the matter. The link to the calculator is: https://www.pipeflowcalculations.com/orifice/calculator.xhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoran7733 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe it is based on the content guideline Wikipedia:External links. You should read that page and if you can explain how it meets one of the inclusion criterion then that is where the discussion should start. ~ GB fan 16:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Zoran7733: In addition to what GB fan said above, linking to one's own pages may be considered a self-promotion, and describing one's own inventions is original research - and both categories are not welcome to Wikipedia. Please see WP:PROMO, WP:OR and WP:WWIN for more detailed info. --CiaPan (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Editiing Continously

What can i if someone is editing a reliable and accurate source....plz help....after continous editing I also got a edit-war message.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shworks999 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-27T17:35:02 (UTC)

Hello, Shworks999. Please read the messages on your user talk page, especially the bit that says "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". Wikipedia works by consensus. If two editors disagree about what should go in an article, it doesn't help for either of them to say "I am right" and revert the other's changes. In that context you must open a discussion with the other editor and anybody else who wants to contribute. If you cannot reach consensus among the participants of the discussion, then dispute resolution tells you what the next steps are. --ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)