User talk:Thatcommsguy

This is Thatcommsguy's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: DVB-I (October 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Only primary sources are cited.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DVB-I and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thatcommsguy! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: DVB-I (October 31)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Novo Tape was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DVB-I and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 17:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: DVB-I (November 1)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DVB-I and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Theroadislong. Thank you for this update.

I'm quite surprised that this has been refused again. The article includes references that are

1) in-depth (BlueBook A177 published by the DVB Project; and the ETSI standard TS 103 770 V1.1.1)

2) reliable (ETSI is a long-standing international standards body; DVB Project is a 30-year-old industry consortium; IBC is a respected industry exhibition; etc.)

3) secondary (the article references several independent secondary sources that have reported on DVB-I developments, including Broadband TV News, Advanced Television, Italia24, SVG Europe, TVB Europe.)

4) independent of the subject (ETSI is independent of the DVB Project; as are the secondary sources referred to above).

DVB-I is a technical specification that is now widely referenced and will become more relevant as implementations spread. It merits a Wikipedia entry in the same way that DVB-T, DVB-S, DVB-C and their variants have entries. Once this has been published, I am confident that those who are involved in further developing, studying and implementing the specification will expand upon and improve the article.

The DVB Project is not a commercial entity. It is a non-profit industry association that develops technical specifications and has a well-elaborated Wikipedia entry dedicated to it.

An article on Service List Registry has already been published (and is referenced in this DVB-I article, a reference that was not added by me). If that article was permitted, then this article on DVB-I certainly should be permitted, since DVB-I is the technical specification/standard that underpins and enables the Service List Registry (which is, incidentally, the offering of a commercial entity.)

Please clarify which sections of the article are not neutral or can be considered to be "more like an advertisement". I will happily delete them, as I'm convinced it is of value to have an article on DVB-I on Wikipedia.

Thanks,

@Thatcommsguy Thatcommsguy (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing[edit]

Hello Thatcommsguy. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Thatcommsguy. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Thatcommsguy|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong, I wasn't previously aware of the mandatory requirements on disclosure. I have nothing to hide here - I've added some information to my own user page that I hope will clarify the situation. I really don't gain financially whether or not my edits are accepted. I don't own any patents, sell any products, work for any company that gains commercially from the deployment of DVB specifications. So yes, I am paid by somebody else in my efforts to get the DVB-I page over the line for publication; but no, I don't have a financial stake in this happening. Indeed, if it is published, then I hope the wider community will take care of enhancing it and I'll have nothing further to do on this.

I hope this helps. Thatcommsguy (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Theroadislong. Is there anything more I can do to help have this article about DVB-I published? Or does the fact that the organization that developed this technical specification is my client mean that my contributions cannot be taken into account? As I'm sure you've seen, I did not create the first draft of this article. That was a user called @Tellytext. I saw in September that there was an article that it seems was previously published and then reverted back to draft status, so I just tried to add to it so that it might meet the requirements for publication. Any advice you have here would be welcome. Thanks. Thatcommsguy (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to continue editing, but at the moment it reads like advertising, merely telling us what it does, whereas Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable indpendent sources say about a topic. You say on your user page that your "interest is in trying to ensure there is useful and accurate information regarding my client's specifications on Wikipedia." that is the very definition of advertising here and will not be acceptable.Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]