IP-81-157-73-83
Welcome!
Hello, IP-81-157-73-83, 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
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! GlassFET 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I don't know how familiar with Wikipedia policy you are, but splitting the article may actually be advantageous to you. If the article is about more than one company, then you cannot use the current company's website as a source for information, you must use third party sources. But if the article were split, you could use the company website as a (qualified) reference. It's a specific exception but only in an article strictly about the subject. See WP:V#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. As soon as you make the article about two different companies with the same name, you limit yourself with respect to sources. So, if you think you have some likelihood of establishing notability for the current company, the article should be split so you can use self-published sources.
As far as I can tell, given the current combined status, is that all that can be said about the currect company is that it exists, unless further third-party sources can be found. GlassFET 21:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not Wikipedia's place to promote non-notable companies. The second New York Tribune is notable, that's one difference you are not taking into account. And I would personally argue that that article should be split if anybody asked my opinion.... GlassFET 22:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like you make many assumptions about other editors and their motivations. I had never heard of Mandrake of Oxford until I started looking at the Mandrake Press article and did some searching for sources. Couldn't find any on the new Mandrake Press, but discovered there was yet a third Mandrake for which there are better sources. So I don't see how it could "explain much". GlassFET 23:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
