User talk:Jim at WRB

My Progress

I have not been able to get on for a while as I have been traveling around working. While on the road, I heard that the Hammerschalgen article was removed not too long ago. I learned of the archiving tool, and figured I would give that a try. My first archive seemed to have worked! I might even go give that a try with my Hammerschlagen draft, which I'm using now mostly as a learning tool.

I am starting to enjoy browsing around Wikipeida reading odds and ends of random articles. As a former programmer, I also have come to appreciate the simplicity of the encoding that was developed by Wikipedia to allow the public to create and edit articles. On those notes, I am pretty wary making any edits simply because I'm still trying to figure out the verifiability and notability policies. I got pretty hung up on not understanding what constitutes a "good" source in my past dealings with the Hammerschlagen article, so I'm using my draft to learn more about this subject. (EDIT for Mel's comment below: I was questioning how to get ahold of a user and where discussion should take place.)

Most people don't mind legitimate comments or questions on their user talk page; that's not spamming. If for some reason you don't want to use the person's user talk page, you can "ping" them to come here to your own talk page. To do that, type your comment here and address it to them. You can ping them using {{ping|theirusername}} or type their user name between double brackets, like this [[User:theirusername]]. The ping will only work when you sign the message; to do that, add four tildes ~~~~ to the end of your message, or put your cursor at the end and click on the button above the editing window that looks like a signature. The only way to privately message someone is to send them an email; if they have email activated, you will see a button "Email this user" to the left of their talk or user page. But email should be used only if there is some real reason to keep the message private. If your comment is general and not addressed to a particular person, put it on the article talk page. If the person has your talk page on their watch list, as I do, they will probably see anything you put here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops, looks like you deleted your question while I was answering it! "Edit conflict" as we say! --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It is nice to see your reply, Melanie! Seeing as you are kind enough to explain to me where to communicate, do you think you would have the time to show me (through example) a little more about Wikipedia's citing policies? (I'm using the draft of mine to learn.) Jim at WRB (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll try, maybe later. Don't have time right now. --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, thank you @MelanieN:! I don't have much time either as I'm on the road often and am on a computer two or three times a month. Spending my few hours of free time this month learning about Wikipeida! I'll just sit tight, and await your aid (if you find the time).

And in the meantime, keep exploring Wikipedia, and making an edit here and there. There is always some way to improve the encyclopedia; that's what Wikipedians do. You don't have to limit yourself to random articles. Read about areas that interest you, and edit wherever you see the need. I know you are careful to avoid COI, and that's good, but that doesn't stop you from improving articles about your hometown, or your school, or your hobby. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, what would you like to know? (This conversation may be a little disconnected since your online availability is limited and so is my time.) To answer some of the questions I think you were asking: About how to cite a reference, see WP:Referencing for beginners. (P.S. Never mind, I see from your draft that you already know how to cite and format a reference.) About what kind of sources to use, it can depend on what your purpose is: to verify facts, or to demonstrate notability.

To verify facts, any published, authoritative (aka reliable) source will do. In the case of news stories, a reliable source is one which "has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Most news organizations such as newspapers would meet that definition; a less reputable one like the National Enquirer would not. Such a source can be cited as reliable when it is speaking in its own voice (i.e. reporting), but generally not when it is voicing opinion such as editorials or op-ed essays, and certainly not when it is paid material such as advertising. To verify facts it is OK to use a source which is not independent (such as the subject's own web page, press releases, or quotes from related parties) but such sources should not be the primary source of information for the article. Unpublished sources are rarely accepted, although "publication" does not have to be in print on dead trees; well established online sources and broadcast sources can be used if they have a reputation for accuracy. Things like YouTube and personal blogs are almost never accepted. Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source, nor are Wikipedia mirrors, nor are any wiki-type, open-sourced projects such as these.

To show notability, a source needs to be not only reliable but also independent, and at least some of the coverage must be substantial. Things that are not independent include the subject (web page, press releases, advertisements) and anyone connected with the subject. Things that are not substantial include: passing mentions in an article about something else; quotes from an affiliated person; lists, membership rosters, etc. There need to be at least some reliable-source references which are primarily about the subject or devote significant coverage to it.

I took a look at the talk page of your draft, where you have commentary about the article and its history here. I see that you are still complaining about those earlier, unverified claims, even though they were removed when you called them to our attention. You make the same complaint at your own webpage's "myths" page [1], without pointing out that Wikipedia removed the information and has since deleted the article. Likewise, you are still going on and on about your "brand" and comparing it to Coke. I can see it is a good thing that Hammerschlagen no longer has an article at Wikipedia. It is clear that no Wikipedia article could satisfy your needs, and none is ever likely to be at Wikipedia again. With that said, do you want commentary on your draft, or is it primarily an intellectual exercise? --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @MelanieN: for the clear description of verifying facts and establishing notability. I have taken the liberty to reflect your concerns in my draft and on our webpage in that Wikipedia (by you) is now credited with removing the information and deleting the article. Also, it would be nice to have some commentary on the draft as to what is wrong with it and what could be improved: by doing so I can learn what constitutes acceptability and what does not. On a more personal note, we (and our predecessors) have owned a name and design, phrases, symbols, and copyrights that distinguish our nail driving competition from that provided by others for well over a half century. In the future, I foresee that I am likely to have to reference this group of intellectual properties in conversation with you (especially if we will be discussing a draft about this collection). Is there a word other than "brand" you like me to use in reference to it? Jim at WRB (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)