Jump to content

User talk:WikiDan61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CloutGxng (talk | contribs) at 21:59, 14 June 2018 (Help Me: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:NoBracketBot

Please post all new discussions at the END of the page, to allow for easier chronological tracking! Thank you! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


11:54:55, 10 April 2018 review of submission by Crazyangel83


Hello, I have edited the content as much as possible to suit wiki requirements. But Im still a bit confused. I have added new citations and changed the content to sound neutral as well. If you could please let me know if this looks okay or what exactly needs to be changed. Crazyangel83 (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazyangel83 (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazyangel83: The Mangalam.TV source that you've added appears to be a sign of significant coverage, but that is the only valid source in your article. Citations to Gopinath's own books is not useful, as this only verifies that he published, not that he is considered a significant or notable author. And the various blogs you've linked to do not appear to have the necessary journalistic rigor and editorial review process. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. Finally, the citations should be attached to the facts that they verify. For help with this, see Wikipedia's Referencing for Beginners guide. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WikiDan61! So if i put in another citation similar to the mangalam.tv one should it suffice? Crazyangel83 (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazyangel183: It would be a good start. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiDan61, I have changed the citations and the content too. Would you please be kind enough to have a look and tell me if its fine now. Crazyangel83 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crazyangel183: Looking deeper into Gopinath's career, I see that he has self-published all his books. We'll need evidence that these books have made some impact. (Local interviews aren't really helpful, as news sources often interview local interest stories.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected Horne Reactor Article

Hi WikiDan61, I am working on the rejected Horne Hybrid Reactor page and found a source in a newspaper, here is a clip. I can add that to the citation, would that be sufficient for approval? Ron3000001 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fusion Newspaper clip.png
@Ron3000001: First, don't post images of newspaper articles; that's a copyright violation. (The image has been so tagged.) Second, no, I don't think that is sufficient. Horne is making some exceptional claims about their fusion reactor technology, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. In this case, Horne should submit technical papers to the relevant journals, and when those journals have peer-reviewed the material, then we could accept the article, citing those peer-reviewed articles. I'm concerned that Horne chose to display their product at a Makers' Faire; that is hardly the technical forum one would expect for such a revelation, and it makes me wonder whether they have actually achieved anything at all. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: Sorry I did not think it would post the newsprint to commons. I think the article is correct but a bit misleading, the only claim is that it is the first to use REBCO superconductors and that is clear from the video if you know about the technology. There is no possible way to generate a field strong enough for visible plasma manipulation for that length of time with conventional electromagnets. If someone could help me reword that to make it more clear and less exceptional that would be great, I don't know how to get community to contribute to a draft article.

I also follow Lockheed Martin's Compact Fusion device which has never published in any peer-reviewed journal and still has a wiki page. I am just trying to get the info out there so any help would be appreciated. Ron3000001 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ron3000001: I would argue that the press that Lockheed's project has received (from The Engineer, Aviation Week & Space Technology, and Technology Review) exceed the level of independent coverage shown in the Horne draft (limited to the Silver State Post). I would also note that the Lockheed project is clearly identified as developmental, whereas the write up of the Horne device would lead one to believe they have achieved a working prototype fusion reactor. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61, I did not intend the draft to indicate the device was not developmental. I made many changes to it, do you mind taking a look? Do you have any other suggestions? Also I see there is no article on Rare earth - Barium - Copper Oxide (REBCO) superconductors. I will start on one of those as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron3000001 (talkcontribs) 15:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see more coverage in reliable sources. The fact that Horne has created their own cryptocurrency to collect investments in this technology leaves me highly skeptical. As for the REBCO article: have at it! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61, How about a criticism section on that article? Ron3000001 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ron3000001: Only if it can be reliably sourced. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined post - IDMB Advisory Ltd

Hi

Thanks for the feedback... but it would be virtually impossible to meet your requirements for an initial post other than the copious references in D&B and other business directories.

You should be aware that there are several similar posts with similar names already in Wikipedia and none of these are any better referenced or notable.

At the moment, if you try and search IDMB, it reverts to IMDb (the movie database). I know that there are several different usages of IDMB around the world... NONE of them are IMDb. At the very least you should be allowing valid alternatives and CORRECT searches, even if you don't publish this one.

I realise that you are a volunteer, applying WP rules, so nothing personal, but I think in this case this is undermining the point of an encyclopedia (where you can look things up and get relevant/right answers).

Regards

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibatey (talkcontribs) 14:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibatey: References in business directories would not be useful. Wikipedia requires that the organization has been the topic of multiple significant instances of media coverage (and business directory listings are not considered significant coverage). If it is "virtually impossible" for this company to meet the requirements to be covered at Wikipedia, then it shouldn't be covered. Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything that is. Also, it is not Wikipedia's mission to solve your company's SEO problems; if your company can't be found in an internet search, please seek the assistance of a professional SEO consultant. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear... the search is within Wikipedia and has nothing to do with SEO... I was simply pointing out that IMDb is NOT IDMB... the letters are in a different order. Apart from this company it is also several abbreviations and a type of card reader. so the search within Wikipedia is wrong.

No need to reply, I'm not looking to change the decision... I was simply trying to add something to the repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibatey (talkcontribs) 17:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

list of Political Parties in Pakistan

i upload complet list that is enlisted in ecp.list of political parties in Pakistan miss many political Parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by ملک محمدعبداللہ (talkcontribs) 12:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ملک محمدعبداللہ: So fix the existing article, don't create an entirely new article with duplicate (and extensive non-English) content. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BPLA page flagged for deletion

Hi WikiDan61,

I'm the web administrator for the Boston Patent Law Association, and saw today that after bringing our page up to date you've flagged us for deletion. This is my first time managing a Wikipedia page, and I'm concerned that my updates today led to the flag. If you have a moment, can you please help me understand how we can mitigate this situation?

Thanks in advance! -Constance Bostonpatentlaw (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bostonpatentlaw: Your editing on the page brought it to my attention (I'm suspicious anytime I see a single large edit to a page, especially when the editor is clearly associated with the organization), but your edits are not the reason I nominated the page for deletion. The article was overtly promotional before you edited it, and the notability issue reflects the organization itself, not the article's content. (Basically, my argument, and you are free to disagree, is that the organization is simply not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia argument, no matter what content the article actually contains.) : By the way, you need to consider changing your username, because it's presently a violation of Wikipedia username policies. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiDan61,

Thanks for your rapid reply! The Board have supplied me with a list of links to BPLA mentions by the USPTO, UNH School of Law, and other entities. Would creating a section of "Press and References" for these links be sufficient to prove our notoriety? I appreciate your assistance in helping me improve our page. As for my username, this was the first thing I tried to register which was not banned outright for being in violation of the username policy. The account exists for the use of the current BPLA administrator, specifically to manage our one page and no others, so it is not misleading but purely descriptive. Thanks for bringing it up though, I appreciate Wikipedia's position on transparency and authenticity. Bostonpatentlaw (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bostonpatentlaw: Notability, not notoriety. (Criminals are notorious; organizations are notable, and hopefully not notorious!) The press and references section might be helpful; I won't be able to say until you've added it and the sources can be evaluated. As to your username, it still represents an organization rather than an individual, and so is a violation of Wikipedia username policies. You could pick a name such as "JimAtBPLA", but the current name implies that you and any number of other people at BPLA might use the account, and that's not allowed.

Networking For Hope

Hi WikiDan please how do i do it then because there are a lot of credible website that proves its truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdrey (talkcontribs)

@Macdrey: First off, you need to rewrite the entire article in the third person (see WP:FIRSTPERSON). Next, you need to rewrite the entire article so that it is not promotional. (See WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM). Third, you need to reference reliable sources that demonstrate that this organization has been the subject of significant coverage. Given that the organization appears to be so new that they have not yet bothered to write anything in their boilerplate website, that last part seems like it might be difficult. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Macdrey Don't forget to disclose if you're being paid, if you work for the company, etc. Vermont (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vermont: I've updated your comment above with a piped link. I find that new editors are often confused by the WP:XXX shortcuts. Piping the link with a standard English term helps. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rakteswari Draft

the information represented in the draft is personally gathered by me. Rakteswari is a lesser known but powerul goddess. Please rereview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikalahasti23 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


added more references from the books published. pls re review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikalahasti23 (talkcontribs) 14:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Srikalahasti23: Sorry. I was able to decline the submission in the past based on rather simple criteria, but I am not able to evaluate your new sources to ascertain whether the article now meets Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps someone more versed in Hindu mythology would be a better reviewer. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiDan 61

After the last rejection, (we already submit 2 requests) concerning Mr. Andrés von Wernitz Salm-Kyrburg, you ask us for a: “proof that he is a noble”. We have as a proof, first, in a wikipedia page, with this URL: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvear_Palace_Hotel this URL, property of Wikipedia Foundation, names Mr. Andrés von Wernitz Salm-Kyrburg as a Baron and being a Baron is already a noble title. If you precise of official documentation which states that Mr. von Wernitz, is a noble, we can send you Official Certificates from: Reino de España, Magyar Királyság, Bundesrepublik Deutschland, République française, Republica Argentina, Repubblica Italiana, also we can send URL from Hello! Or other yellow press in noble’s parties. Mr. von Wernitz is a Baron a Duke, a Count and a Prince. Please, if you are unable to manage this situation, escalate the problem to your Head. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David876 (talkcontribs) 11:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David876: The contents of es:Alvear Palace Hotel are irrelevant. While the Wikimedia Foundation owns the servers on which Wikipedia is hosted, it is not responsible for the user-generate content contained therein. Wikipedia guidelines disallow the use of Wikipedia as a source because Wikipedia articles, being editable by anyone who happens to come along, are not a terribly reliable source of consistent truth. As for the other documentation: it's unclear to me why all of those countries would have generated certificates attesting to the nobility of Mr von Wernitz, whose claim to nobility refers to an Empire that ceased to exist over 200 years ago, but let's assume for a moment that they all have produced such certificates. Possession (legitimate or not) of an obscure title of nobility is not a sufficient claim of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you could review....thanks...

Dan61 -- Good afternoon. I updated the "Jonathan Perkins" draft page. I addressed many of your suggestions and added many other citations/references. I originally was trying to be brief and succinct. But after reading your comments added several other case histories and references. (Of course, there are many more I could add...but I am still trying to be concise).

Anyway...thanks for reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilliamson11 (talkcontribs) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilliamson11: You've added some citations (three by my count) since the article was last declined, but they don't help your case. They are again either local coverage for cases Perkins has won, or for his charity work in raising money by climbing Mount Kilimanjaro (impressive, but not notable), or a notation of an award granted by an organization whose own notability is questionable. All in all, I'd still decline this. As it is, I'll leave that to someone else to avoid the appearance of "piling on" to your submission. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about revisions

Hello,

Thank you for the feedback on the Optherium Labs draft. I am in the process of editing it. I removed any language that didn't appear netural, but I've run into an issue that I fear will result in another rejection. We are in the process of securing media placements in a number of publications, but many of these articles are not yet published. Therefore, there are few external citations we can rely on.

What is your best advice? Is there anything else we could do besides wait until we've amassed some external media placement that covers the nature of our solutions? Please advise.

Thanks again for your feedback. I appreciate your help in refining this entry to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamOPEX (talkcontribs) 20:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamOPEX: Securing media placements means that you are providing copy for magazines to print about you, which would then not be considered reliable sources because they are not independent. If no one has yet taken the opportunity to write about your company, it is not yet ready to have a Wikipedia article. Also, as you appear to be closely connected to the company in question, please carefully review Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and perhaps consider letting someone else write the Wikipedia article about your company. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a Significant, Relaible, independent ans Secondary Sources

Can Wikipedia pages be used as references for sources?Rotimibean (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotimbean: No. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 AR 87

Hey Dan, thanks for your message, where can I post my fiction so that it SEEMS it was on Wikipedia? Like is there some kind of fiction-style Wikipedia clone? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macacio87 (talkcontribs) 15:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Macacio87: I'm not sure what you mean. Are you looking to make it seem as if your writing is an actual Wikipedia article? If that's the case, I don't know of any place to do that, and I wouldn't encourage that anyway. We are trying to make Wikipedia a source of reliable factual information. Attempts to produce fiction and pass it off as Wikipedia content runs counter to Wikipedia's goals. If, on the other hand, you are just looking for a free venue to publish your fiction, I might suggest Wikia, or try Googling "fiction publishing websites". Good luck with your writing. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidbuild page updated

Hi Dan,

I am not sure if I resubmitted my second draft properly, but have added another citation from an authoritative external site which should help with my reference section.

Many thanks,

Shelley

Grish068 (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grish068: You do not appear to have resubmitted your draft, but I wouldn't rush to do so. The source you added appears to be from Authentic Storytelling, one man's (Christopher Trappe) "how to do marketing" blog. I wouldn't call that source "high authority". And the post isn't really about Vidbuild, it's about Trappe's experience trying to post a promotional video he had created for Vidbuild on different platforms. Yes, it mentions the name Vidbuild, but it really isn't about the Vidbuild platform at all, and even if it were, Trappe was trying to sell Vidbuild, so we can't really consider that a reliable source. You'll need to find actual independent media coverage of this company/product before the article can be accepted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiDan61,

As a website that publishes news stories, car reviews, and that provides research tools for car buyers, we are widely known in the industry and car-loving community yet perhaps not significant enough to have a full story written about us. You point out that we are a source of information, and that is essentially what we are.

I can provide dozens of citations where stories we have scooped, via interviews with car executives for example, have been used by other publications to create news stories for their readers. We are established enough for carmakers to loan us cars to review, conduct interviews with top execs, and we recently appeared on prime time TV on a Kia commercial, using our quote for the Kia Stinger.

Millions of people read our car reviews and use our shopping tools to make car buying decisions. We are a source of daily car news too. Is that not enough to be included on Wikipedia?

--Adamwiki777 (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamwiki777: You could cite your website's Alexa ranking to verify its significance, as a start. Or you could provide evidence that the website has received a significant award, such as the Webby. See WP:WEB for more detailed information. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the information. One of our closest competitors is a site called motor1.com, which has managed to successfully create a wiki page. The references they used are predominantly from their owner company. I see nothing in line with what you have requested of us. We haven't won a Webby, but nor have hundreds if not thousands of sites that appear on Wikipedia. Our Alexa ranking is also misleading as we recently relaunched the site in January, which negatively affected our ranking plus a lot of our readers find us using the iOS and Android app, as well as through Apple News and Facebook. It's very important for the integrity of the company that we manage to establish a wikipedia page. Is there anything else we can do to set this up? Best wishes, Adam.

--Adamwiki777 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamwiki777: It sounds an awful lot like you're trying to use Wikipedia to promote your company. Please don't. Wikipedia is not a business directory, nor is it to be used as a tool in your SEO strategy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan,

I'm surprised you interpreted my message that way. I honestly have no ulterior motive for wanting a page. I've been at the company for a few years now and simply felt it was time we appeared on Wikipedia. I wouldn't even know where to begin with SEO! We've been an established brand for a while now (in certain circles at least), so I didn't think creating a page would be so problematic. I'd appreciate your assistance in helping me to solve this.

--Adamwiki777 (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamwiki777: You literally said: "It's very important for the integrity of the company that we manage to establish a wikipedia page." That's promotion. That's not what Wikipedia is here for. I've given you what advice I can on how to improve your draft. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello WikiDan61, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

None of the sources you saw are advertisements as we don’t have one. The website is sourced once and linked in just to show the owner profile is consistent. Everything else is independent third party. The economist, the ARMY, CNG media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defensecontributor (talkcontribs) 15:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of this moment, Draft:Taurus Defense Solutions has 12 references to eight individual sources, viz:
  1. Mysite Taurus Defense Solutions Official Site : Obviously the company's own website. (And, by the way, if you want to convince people that this is a legit notable organization, a Wix.com website with the default title left in place is not the way to do it.)
  2. Taurus Defense Solutions LLC on LinkedIn.com : Obviously, advertising. (If you don't realize that LinkedIn is basically a site to advertise oneself, you don't know what LinkedIn is.)
  3. Rsvooyugoexport Formation Documents : Self-published documents documenting the original formation of the predecessor company (whether self-published or not, formation documents are not a sign of notability)
  4. "Serbia's Arms Industry". The Economist. 6 Jan 2011. : Admittedly not a primary source (although one could be fooled into thinking so by virtue of using scan of the article loaded to Issuu.com rather than the direct link to the article). Still, barely mentioned in passing.
  5. This tidbit from Global News Wire, which basically mentions that the company has been re-formed, but says almost nothing else about it. (Again, not an ad, but also not a sign of notability.)
  6. This state filing document, a primary source providing no indications of notability
  7. This item from CNG news that, again, basically just says the company exists but that not much is yet known about it
  8. This ad from Zyne.com, that is basically just a copy of the company's website.

So, that. Also, your use of the term "we" indicates that you are associated with this organization. I urge you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and perhaps ask that someone else write this article for you, at Requested Articles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Soviet Union my English not good but I can assure I am not associated with business but I am one of few still alive who remember it before Rsvooyugoexport and rosoboronexport were taken by government. Also I did not mean to delete I am unsure how to use this, you can relax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defensecontributor (talkcontribs) 17:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News

Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days.

Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed.

March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words).

April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words).

May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words).

Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June.

June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan,

I am writing to you, as you provided me with helpful, constructive feedback for my first submission. I made some amendments and resubmitted it, and got some pretty rough feedback by RobSmith which I felt were a bit unfair.

Thread below:

Comment by RoySmith

Popular? By what measure? Award nominated? The award itself is some random meaningless award, and being nominated for it is even more meaningless. There's nothing in the article that says anything more than, "this is a generic video app".

This is actually really rude. I have read the rules of communication on Wikipedia, and myself abide by these rules. As a staff member, I find his feedback incredibly disrespectful. My reply and justification below.

Comment by Grish068

Hi Roy, Thank you for your feedback on my submission. A couple of points I wanted clarification on. My submission is being made to aid the representation of online tools under the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Similar submissions have made reference to 'popular' without citation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slidely).

Your reference to the award nomination - did you have a look at the award and link? The tool was actually selected as a finalist for a Kent Business Award. They aren't meaningless, random awards, Kent is one of the largest regions of the United Kingdom, and relevant to millions of people.

I am very much interested in constructive feedback to ensure all my future submissions and contributions are as neutral and helpful as possible. The other points I will be re-researching and actioning as soon as I am able, but I do feel the points mentioned above need to be reconsidered.

Kind regards,

Shelley


Any help you can offer Dan would be much appreciated. At the moment I've just been left feeling very deflated and a bit angry at the 'support' I received from him.

Kind regards,

Shelley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grish068 (talkcontribs) 13:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grish068: RoySmith's comments might have been a bit gruff, but on substance I'd agree. The site you linked to indicates that Vidbuild was nominated for the Maidstone city category of the Kent Business Awards, making this recognition very local (and without even a win, really not even worth mentioning). I recognize that to the owners and employees of Vidbuild, this nomination may have seemed like a nice pat on the back, but to the rest of the world, it's kind of a big "meh". You haven't really added any significant coverage since I rejected the draft in the first place. The coverage from Business2Community is sketchy: it looks like a paid product endorsement to me. And Roy is correct in questioning the popularity of Vidbuild. Just calling an app "popular" is meaningless. That word should be removed from the lead. Instead, you should point to real, verifiable user counts to assert any claim of popularity.
I'm concerned about the statement you've made above, to wit:
My submission is being made to aid the representation of online tools under the Wikipedia encyclopedia.
Since Vidbuild is the only tool you've written about, it appears that your submission is being made to aid the representation of this particular tool, which is just another way of saying advertising, which, of course, is not allowed.
I can't offer you any further suggestions on improving your article than I've already provided: find the significant sources, if they exist. If they don't, I can't help you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

Hi there thanks for the review ive been trying to unsuccessfully submit this article for some time now. i need your help