Hi, I want change name of the article Imaginary relativity to capitalize Imaginary Relativity. How can i do this. Help would be great!Mehran950 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could petition at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Note, however, that this page has been nominated for deletion. It would be a good idea to wait until that discussion has run its course before starting the move request. (Another option at that time might be to bring it up on the article's talk page, or to move it under WP:BB, as long as you wait for the AfD to end, provide a reason in the log, and understand the potential for someone to revert.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please note my answer about the Halfin-Whitt regimeShuroo (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am posting in an effort to get some advise on a new Wikipedia page where time is of the essence. I have made several edits to Wikipedia in the past, but this is my first page submission. My company recently launched a free online fundraising web platform for charities and nonprofits called iDonate. We have registered over 100 charities in the first two months. The platform has some features which are not available anywhere else (eg, white label fundraising pages, dedicated online auction shop). The initial page submission was rejected and we have resubmitted with (hopefully) the necessary corrections to get the page listed as expeditiously as possible. Our concern is that it may take some time to demonstrate how we meet the necessary criteria. Meanwhile the charities continue to struggle. Our view is that the ethos of Wikipedia would be to support an initiative of this importance to help raise much needed monies for charities and nonprofits. As soon as the project proves itself in Ireland, we plan to go International with the service. The website is already raising 1000's of euros per day in Ireland. We plan to use the Wikipedia page to further promote the project. We appeal to you to support the project in the short-term. If you feel at any point that iDonate is not a bona fide operation, you always have the option to remove the page. Thanking you in anticipation and I look forward to working with you. Paddy Coyne - pcoyne @ ebook . ie Poshpaddy (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, writing about "your company" may be seen as a conflict of interest and is discouraged.

If the sources on the web platform do not yet exist, we should not have an article on it. Wikipedia is not the place to raise awareness of this platform (and in particular not to promote it, see WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:SPAM; this is exactly the reason why writing about your company is discouraged); our articles should only cover subjects that are notable already.

The vast majority of your sources seem either to provide trivial coverage or to be primary sources; I don't think they establish the subject's notability. Huon (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nivis

Article on Nivis has been turned down twice on notability grounds. This is a well known, 15 year old company in an important technology area that promises to have a huge impact on the world over time (the Internet of Things). Is the issue that I still have not adequately documented the company or is there a belief that this topic is inherently not noteworthy? (I note that there are already articles on other companies working in this field.)

I'm still a little new at this, so let me know if I have missed something obvious.

Thanks!

Southern Artist (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia measures notability by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Among your sources, three are press releases, which are presumably not independent, another two are blogs, which are usually considered low on the "reliability" scale (and one blog post seemst to be just a reposted press release), another two just drop the name and tell us very little about the company. The best two are Business Week and smartmeters, and I'm not at all sure about the latter - the article doesn't come with information on the author, there's no indication of editorial oversight, and I cannot tell wheter smartmeters has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a reliable source. My suggestion would be to look for more in-depth coverage in clearly reliable sources, such as newspaper articles.

Two comments aside: Firstly, while Nivis may have a huge impact over time, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - that it may become notable does not mean it already is. Secondly, regarding the articles on other companies: Other stuff exists, but every article has to stand on its own merits. Huon (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Huon ... I'll keep working on it!

Southern Artist (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions)
Hello.

I am not new here, and have been editing since mid-2008. However, my recent submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Find and replace was declined as a how-to manual by the reviewer, although, (s)he did state that it was a good topic. I'd been invited here by the reviewer. I would greatly appreciate assistance in rewriting the article to become more encyclopedic. I do have reliable sources, and at least I've accomplished that. Help would be greatly appreciated. 69.155.143.207 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC), copied here 22:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC), last modified 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what to say about this. Are the Microsoft help pages supposed to be the reliable sources? They seem overly company-specific (for example, I doubt find-and-replace operations in a Linux environment use what Microsoft calls the "FindText function"), I'm not sure they actually come with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy necessary to be considered reliable (there's definitely no editorial oversight), and worst of all, the first one doesn't even say what it's cited for. A company's support pages on its own product also look like primary sources to me. The topic might be discussed in textbooks on software development, but I'm no expert and wouldn't even know where to start looking.

Regarding the how-to problem: The entire middle of the article is an explanation on how to search and replace. That should probably be removed entirely. I'd say: Explaining the functionality commonly associated with finding and replacing is encyclopedic, explaining which buttons to click is not. Huon (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]