User talk:Kiteinthewind

• Mattrhwrd (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Construction Monitor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added an article from a secondary source that features this company. I know one of the problems was that most of the media references to this company only cite it's data and are not about the company so hopefully, this helps. If not please let me know what I can do more.

The addition is a start, but I think more sources are needed. As it stands, there is a chance the draft, if moved to mainspace, might be deleted for being an unremarkable business. So long as you are working to improve this article here in draft space, it won't be deleted. Please work on getting more sources. If you find two or three more, I believe it will have a better chance to be accepted. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks very much for reviewing the article, and on Christmas Day as well! I would really appreciate it if you could answer a couple of queries I have about your feedback. From your comment I didn't quite understand whether the problem was wholly to do with my referencing, or whether regardless of that I still hadn't demonstrated the subject's notability. The Companies House refs are just there to verify that the companies mentioned exist. The refs from the company this person heads are to verify TV or radio appearances. They are video clips hosted on LCP's Youtube account because they're not available directly from the sources (Sky News, BBC etc). Should I cite them in the way laid out in the guidelines instead (i.e without referring to youtube at all - [[1]])? Or, are you saying that even if I do the above there would still not be enough evidence of notability? I hope that makes sense. Thanks very much for your help. Francesca w (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to find more independent, reliable sources that can attest to Heaton's notability. If possible, cite her appearances on the media outlets, straight from the media outlet themselves (if those sources exist, which may or may not be the case). In the case of the Companies House cites, this is an article about Heaton, not the various companies, so it's not too relevant to her. I believe a couple more indpendent, reliable sources are all that's needed for this article to be accepted. Thanks! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kiteinthewind,

You rejected my submission on the aforementioned article based on the references. However, all references come directly from the Bank of England, which is a reputable institution (and that's an understatement). I understand they are pdf's but they are still being published by one of the most well known institutions in its industry. The WSJ has also mentioned at least one of these studies https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-changing-face-of-the-corporate-bond-market-1511501401?mod=e2tw I also reference researchgate.net and independent publication, DefaultRisk, Companies House a government institution, risk control, SUERF the largest finance forum globally, TED a European Tenders platform (government), Imperial College Business School, all to prove that not only the industry takes them very seriously but they are recognized by their peers and third party organizations.

What can I do to improve the artcile and get it published? What am I doing wrong?

Thanks for your help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Risk_Control_Limited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbuendia1016 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the cites you have provided, not all of your references come from the Bank of England (which, while well-known, is a governmental organization, and consequently, in my opinion, not independent). You have at least six cites from Risk Control, which, given the context of this article, cannot be considered independent (a company talking about itself is not independent). In addition, you have a number of sources from Companies House, which only proves the company exists, but is not an indication that it is notable. There are only two sources from independent media organizations (Reuters and CNBC). Please don't take the rejection the wrong way. The article is a good start. I believe a couple more independent, reliable sources, preferably from reputable media organizations, are all that's needed. Rejection is not permanent, and as long as you are working on the draft, you can resubmit it. While you're at it, please work at formatting the cites in a more proper manner, which will make initial verification of the cites an easier endeavor. This can be done via Twinkle, which you can enable in the Gadgets section of your preferences page. Thanks for your contributions thus far, and please, keep editing! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I need to add that some of the papers you cited in the article are written by Risk Control, and given the subject in question, is also not independent. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 21:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll look into it and come back to you then. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbuendia1016 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Phoenix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salt River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert other user's edit, if you don't know well. And it feels like you are stalking me, so I think it rather offensive. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know, it is regretfully what I want to say to you. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I hope to resolves several issues on Wikipedia related to you smoothly. --Garam (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to solve problems, you need to extend some sort of professional courtesy, which you have expressed little desire to do so at the moment. Firstly, you need to

For Bareunmirae Party, see talk page. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with your talkpage. It has everything, however, to do with your attitude and approach to the work here on Wikipedia. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a minor misunderstanding about my opinion. That "talk page" means talk page of article "Bareunmirae Party", not my talk page. --Garam (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still. The "evidence" you cited will now cause a

WP:RECENT violation. I think you need to be aware now that the pagemove you're advocating will inevitably be a rules violation. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 04:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• special:diff/828015889

Please don't misuse the "rollback" tool, and read Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. If you misuse "rollback" tool again, I will visit Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have now leveled a false accusation and a threat against a fellow Wikipedia editor, and you are hereby asked to stop immediately. The edit in question did not involve the rollback tool. The edit utilized a tool called Twinkle that is available to all confirmed users. Also, under

WP:DISENGAGE, I have opted to ignore you in all future correspondences, for the time being. You are hereby asked to cease communications on this page, at this time. Any further correspondences involving you on this page, until further notice, will be treated as harassment, and will be dealt with accordingly. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 15:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]