User talk:OWStarr

Welcome!

Hello, OWStarr, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! France3470 (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pearltrees.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the reviewer's talk page

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Millermk90 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your question. What do reliable sources have to do with promotional tone? Anyway, if you want me to be specific, the following are promotional sections quoted from the article: "It is a free service that allows anyone to organize and share what he or she likes on the internet ... This is a new type of internet organisation (selecting, organising and sharing web contents) and web experts agree on the perspectives of this activity," "the company has experienced strong growth," "both readers and curators alike can explore new content and discover the content they already know from a new angle," and "content curators are gaining a new audience." I might also note that the article seems to be written twice. You should look at that and decide which version you want to leave on the page and which to remove (or you could take some content from both). Also, all the pictures of example.jpg are probably not helpful to the article. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Millermk90 (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it wasn't notable, so I don't really understand what you are saying. You seem to be avoiding the actual problem with the article (that is isn't netrual). Anyway, in answer to your question, WP:SELFPUB allows you to use primary sources, as long as the majority of the article's sources are not primary (this is to ensure that the content is notable). As a side note, please add new content to the bottom of talk pages, not the top. Thanks, Millermk90 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still learning the game here. Any mistakes are my lack of familiarity with how things work, not an intentional abuse.--OWStarr (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's fine, I seem to recall completely screwing up someone's talk page the first time I contibuted to Wikipedia :) Now that I've read the updated draft, the article looks a lot better. I had to remove one section as it was copied and pasted, which constitutes a copyright violation. If anything else in the article is copied and pasted form another source (even if you reworded it a bit), it needs to be removed before the article goes live. Other than that, I'd say it's pretty good. As long as nothing else is a copyright violation, resubmit it and I'll approve the submission. Millermk90 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you've got a sense of humor. I actually had permission to use the text about the technology stack but it's no big deal if you think it should be thrown out. I've saved the page again with your edits, so please let me know if you think it's good to go. If not, happy to keep working at it. Really appreciate the time you've taken to help me out. Wikipedia is a bit scary for newbies, even ones that had good karma on /. and blogged for techcrunch. --OWStarr (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just did a few more minor things (adjusting spacing and punctuation around references, removing some red-link to topics which seemed unlikely to be created soon, fixing some brackets, etc). The article looks quite good now, and if you submit it I'd be happy to accept it. Millermk90 (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just resubmitted. Again thanks for being such a cool and helpful Wikipedian! Really appreciate your comments and editing help. Just curious, how much time per day (on average) do you think you spend working on Wikipedia?--OWStarr (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to give up on adding more colons to the start of each line, cause I'm lazy. Right now I'm out of University, so I have lots of time to spend on Wikipedia, generally several hours a day. I work long hours for 3 days a week, so the rest are basically free, and I have nothing better to do. By the way, if you plan on sticking around, you should create a User page (do that here). You can put stuff about you on it, and add userboxes from the userbox gallery. Of course, there's no pressure to reveal any more identifying information about yourself than you want. I submitted the pearltrees article (you said you did, but something must have gone wrong because it wasn't submitted??) and approved it. It's now live on Wikipedia at Pearltrees. If you ever have any questions about anything, my talk page is always open, and I wish you luck in whatever else you choose to do on Wikipedia! Millermk90 (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Millermk90, thanks again for your help and tips. Sincerely appreciated!--OWStarr (talk) 15

36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Patrice lamothe. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. --Drm310 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Drm310. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Patrice lamothe, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Drm310 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drm310. I'm Oliver. Just getting started on a complete entry. Didn't mean to submit it yet if that's what I accidentally did. I'm still just learning. Your help, suggestions, guidance, all appreciated. Thanks!OWStarr (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Patrice lamothe

The article Patrice lamothe has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1 21:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the "references" you have added is particular convincing as a realiable reference. Some are just links to the referred entities. The notability of the person in question is not really established either. Please look at those issues promptly before I or someone else deletes the article. Agathoclea (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Agathoclea, I will be updated some of these references shortly. I do have a question about what a reliable reference is for a person. For example, Patrice Lamothe is the CEO and Founder of a company that has built a community of nearly 1.5 million users and generates in excess of 30,000,000 pageviews per month. He is also a notable French blogger and his company has received accolades and awards in the US, France and globally via Firefox, Google and Apple. He was a top BCG consultant and excelled scholastically. This is his first startup. Under these circumstances, what would you consider "reliable references"? Thank you.OWStarr (talk)

File permission problem with File:PatriceLamothe121512.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PatriceLamothe121512.jpg, which you've sourced to http://www.crunchbase.com/person/patrice-lamothe. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]