Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2011 June 20
I wrote this article (my first ever!) and now it is live. I would like it reviewed. Thank you.
Mtstaffa (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good work with the referencing and structure.-Cntras (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback Cntras. I will see about rewording the "subsidiaries" section. In the meantime, do you think you could remove the "new article" banner at the top. Thanks for your feedback and help. Mtstaffa (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wow you are fast! Thanks Cntras very much! Mtstaffa (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback Cntras. I will see about rewording the "subsidiaries" section. In the meantime, do you think you could remove the "new article" banner at the top. Thanks for your feedback and help. Mtstaffa (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This page describes an economic simulator. This simulator is a computer software based on the Tamari Attractor equations, which aims to forecast the economic stability of a country.
Imaebn (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- In order to be notable and thus eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, all topics (including this one) need independent third party coverage. That means that other people not connected to the software need to have written (or spoken) about it. Independent professional reviews, independent articles about it's popularity, etc are the kinds of things to look for. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I recently rewrote this long-standing page with much more information on his work and also many more references. I'd like feedback. This page is currently nominated for deletion, but i believe it can be saved.
Stuartyeates (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Probably the best feedback now is to follow the deletion discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
www.magna.in
[edit]Review this page. This page is written for business purpose. To promote the company. There will be more information provided going forward.
Magna Infotech (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've marked Magna Infotech Pvt. Ltd. for deletion, as it appears to be nothing more than an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and promotional articles are not accepted. For more information, please see Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. Thank you. —Tommyjb (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review and make adjustment from neutral Point of View to the following article
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Big_C_Vietnam
Jamesbigc (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The article is based on reliable sources, the content has got no copyright and has been written by this author. I am waiting for feedback!
Ucw-programme (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- It has zero references. Presumably, this information didn't come out of your own head. While I see some external links at the end, they seem to be a resource to get reports. I don't see anything identifying where all this material came from.
- By the way if you are associated with the UCWprogram you shouldn't be editing this. (See WP:COI If you are not, you should change your user name.--SPhilbrickT 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Vrumore (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Informatics for Consumer Health (ICH) is a government initiative coordinated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). ICH focuses on a coordination of health information, technology, and health care delivery that empowers providers to manage care and increases the ability of consumers to gain mastery over their own health.[1] The ICH online initiative, Informatics for Consumer Health, involves stakeholders from various sectors—commercial IT, government, health care, education, research, and advocacy—exchanging ideas and resources to bridge information technology and health care with the goal of improving behavioral support for all consumers. The Informatics for Consumer Health field is related to health informatics, medical informatics, consumer health informatics, eHealth, and health information technology.
156.40.34.255 (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Pleas help...this is my first wiki entry.
Thank you!
ButtleUK (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I want the un-reviewed tag on the page to be removed! I would appreciate any of your feedback! thank you!
Jpendergast (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Editors and volunteers. Earlier I had written a wiki, which was deleted after discussion. I belief the delete was incorrect, as I did address the earlier arguments, at least I think I did. No further comments were done to actually verify the improvements, which would have made the consensus based on an old wiki page. Anyway, I would like you to review the page (which went through Userfication), to actually be able to complete the discussion, and see if it is considered a valuable contribution.
Freegold
[edit]Freegold derives its name from a monetary environment where gold is set free, and has no function as money. Gold is demonetized, and has one function only: a store of value. The function of money changes only slightly: it is a medium of exchange and unit of account, but stripped of the store of value function. In this environment, currency and freegold will coexist to supplement each other, without interacting with each other.
Rd2c (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking for suggestions and edits before I submit this post. Do you think I need more sources?
Lucy82891 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Please review this article and help me find a way to remove the flags. There have been several changes made to make it more credible, several non-notable items were removed. I have tried several attempts at posting this in May, as well as contacting the administrator that placed the flags on the page to no avail. What else can I do to get this removed?
Please help - thank you.
Wendyfables (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to know how to make this more neutral as well as making it sound less like an advertisement. Thanks!
NyakaIntern (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I want an opinion on the amount of information provided. Is what I have a decent place to start?
Let me know and thanks!
Tracysmallbell (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Apicker/Alan Laney
[edit]Need some review help as I am new at this and this is a new article.
Apicker (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
In the light of the explosion of the social networking sites and the recent news media circus surrounding a NY Congressman's sexual indiscretions via Twitter, the word ESLUT refers to people who indulge in inappropriate sexual behavior online. Submission to wikipedia was encouraged by friends and colleagues. As it is a techno-new word derived from the word slut, the definition of the word slut is not repeated. I would appreciate feedback - many thanks.
Jlbgiles (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It already has references added. It just needs to be reviewed.
24.11.226.169 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody, I posted two questions here yesterday, June 21st, but the whole day seems to have disappeared. Should I post these questions again ?
Thank you in advance for your help!
87.65.38.122 (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- The day is present. However, according to logs, you never posted any other requests for feedback. Did you post them when logged in or while using a different IP address (computer)? Quinxorin (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)