 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Merge
editWow. These articles are essentially the same...:Jay8g Hi!- I am... -What I do... WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM I agree. These pages should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comediartist (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Merger complete. --DarkCrowCaw 12:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit war
editThese back-and-forth reversions have gone on long enough. Wikipedia articles are written through consensus, not edit warring. There are problems with both revisions, but this is not the way to solve them. I suggest the involved parties familiarize themselves with identifying reliable sources, no original research, and neutral point of view. If an editor wishes to make a change to the article that meets these guidelines, an edit request may be made on this page. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 August 2012
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, My name is Stan Eyler and I invented Cleaning Cards in 1983 - not in 1990 as the article about Cleaning Cards suggests. It goes on to say that they were invented by me at Clean Team which is also wrong. I received numerous US patents for cleaning cards and created the entire Technical Products industry so I have a little knowledge about this industry and specifically this product. Your article was written by someone that obviously knows very little about the background and history. So you can use the information submitted by them or you can use the information created by the person that invented cleaning cards. If you want to maintain the integrity of wiki and the spirit of others that write about subjects they truly know, then I believe it is your duty to rely upon the information provided by whoever the individual was that created whatever industry they are writing about. Especially if they have been in the industry for over 30 years.
To dismantle the integrity and soil the reputation of wiki over cleaning cards is ridiculous but I can tell you that I am passionate about cleaning cards.
Respectfully,
Stan Eyler
Cleantechcompany (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. I'm sorry, but original research is not accepted on Wikipedia. That's why your changes as 50.128.247.36 were reverted. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)- Replying to message on my talk page: Unfortunately, I must agree with FloBo's reasons for declining this request. Personal knowledge, even expert personal knowledge, must cite verifiable sources to be allowed in an article. I know this is frustrating, and Wikipdia is often criticized for not respecting expert opinion, but that's the reality of how we operate here. If you cite published sources that back up or refute particular assertions, then your edit requests are much more likely to be accepted. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC).
Article being discussed at AN/I for AFD nomination
editThe article is being dicuseed at AN/I for AFD nomination or nuking it to a stub. The catalyst was battling and commercialization issues, but a big underlying problem is no sourcing. I'm going to try (on a BRD basis) some fast thinning of the worst stuff which might help save it from those fates. I have no hard feelings if you revert me but please keep the above in mind. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- zOMG, an invitation to revert? I've got my finger on the button! Just kidding, go for it. I'm interested to see what you can do with this. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Mostly done. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
To the authors
editPlease see previous section. In the spirit of helping to keep the article I have deleted much IMHO problematic material. And tweaked other areas. I think that now the article now consists of good quality unsourced material. I don't think that anybody is going to require sourcing of everything, but this article has ZERO references/cites which is a severe situation. Can you get some of this material sourced/cited? Let me know if I can help with the details. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)