User talk:Greg c1988

February 2020

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Draft:The Lottery Office while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lottery Office (April 25)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Very much a notable topic, but the licensing and charity sections have no references whatsoever. Please find some references for those sections.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Lottery Office and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Lottery Office, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Zanimum (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Greg c1988! Having an article 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! Zanimum (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lottery Office (April 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Lottery Office and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Lottery Office, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lottery Office (April 29)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:

The most recent edits have not addressed the notability concern. There is currently insufficient indication that the company has been written about in depth by multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources as described in the WP:NCORP criteria. The author's comment that other articles about lotteries are treated in a less stringent way doesn't change the need for new articles to be assessed against the notability criteria. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Lottery Office and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Lottery Office, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lottery Office (April 30)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Curb Safe Charmer was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: No significant improvement in sourcing. Fails WP:NCORP.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Can someone please get back to me on the below. It seems to be just my comment that doesnt get a reply on the Ask for Advice page, and I can't publish changes on this page anymore. Please see below.

Hi guys,

I have removed the line which was originally marked as "citation needed", which was was just deemed to be a duplicate in the last review - which I contested. Re-reading it over again, this line is not needed anyway, as it is a fact about the parent company and not the actual company in which this article is based on.

All citations have been added where requested. Sections that have been marked as having insufficient references have been removed (as stated above, plus another in other feedback).

There are currently 8 citations, in 6 different categories: 3 x News 1 x Charities 1 x Different Charity 1 x Industry Analysis 1 x Government's Legislation 1 x Australian gaming council

Trying my best here guys. This is obviously a notable topic, as every other lottery in Australia is on Wikipedia, including netlotto, which has terrible content (no citations) and isn't even a lottery - but a reseller. This article is an expansion on the category of Lotteries in Australia. I'm trying to get this to a level of quality you require. Yes, it would be great to have this article live for The Lottery Office, but it's also a notable topic in the industry that expands on this subject for Wikipedia. It is not simply adding a business for self-promotion.

Unfortunately, the only citation I can make to the law, points to the legislation in the Northern Territory. To mix it up, I have added - https://www.austgamingcouncil.org.au/content/northern-territory-code-practice-responsible-online-gambling. But this then points to the original citation I had anyway. And, news articles are most common in this sector. Charities don't do write-ups, except on social media, it's just really hard to get anything more solid.

Is there something else that needs editing?

Really hope these changes satisfy the Wiki's stringent requirements. I absolutely understand why you reviewers are strict. Wikipedia has reached a level where every man and his dog want to advertise their own business, and obtain solid backlinks. After reading through all the feedback on this page, I don't envy the work you do as volunteers.

But I genuinely ask you to please, have a re-read though all of this, and allow me to fix what ever needs to be readdressed - If still need be. What you need, where, and how. I will do my best, but I don't know what more I can do. I have researched this topic everywhere for further references. I can't get anything. I don't have any contacts who can help me in the company, but then again, if they give me a reference, it would be from them anyway.

I have found a copy of the Northern Territory license, in PDF format, issued to The Lottery Office. That's the only thing I haven't included. I can, if you think it's relevant.

Cheers, Greg -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg_c1988 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, Greg! Hope you're well. You just want people to have the info they need to decide whether to buy from The Lottery Office, but you've had a frustrating experience at AfC.

I wish I could tell you want you want to hear. Regardless, please read this through and seriously consider my advice.

As my friend's mother would say, don't trap yourself in a cul-de-sac. Merge your draft into Lotteries in Australia. Do so according to policy, and that info will be somewhere people can find. If you want to turn The Lottery Office into a redirect to Lotteries in Australia, go right ahead.

Someone else may trout me for the advice I've just given you. I would've given a different user writing on a different company different advice. My thoughts:

Likely, two news articles discuss The Lottery Office beyond a mere mention: the paywalled Australian article (probably) and an article republished in The Queensland Times. A third article on the Powerball simply quotes a spokesperson. The company might meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but again: cul-de-sac. No use spending even more time at AfC. Put the info somewhere people can find. Follow policy so that it'll stick. Do what you came here to do, however unorthodoxly.
You've shown passion about this topic; knowledge on it; and respect for Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and processes.
Many articles related to Australian lotteries (to put it bluntly) suck, such as the aforementioned "Lotteries in Australia". Sure, someone else could fix it, but a) so far, no one has and b) would they match you in passion, knowledge, and an ability to work with the Wikipedia community? Would they know how to organize this information in a way that's helpful to people like you: Australians who want to know about their lottery companies?

Fix whatever you can; delete, merge, or redirect what you can't. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's so nice to have a humane reply! I appreciate this so much. Thank you for giving me solutions, greeting me, being understanding, coming down to earth and having some decency.

I can't get any more references unfortunately. The reviewers haven't actually mentioned the citations any further since they've been amended. I've also read through all the guidelines, and this article is within them. As you said, it's a cul-de-sac, but that's not acceptable. The last thing I've been hit up on is a Conflict of Interest, as you've seen. It seems like every card is being used against this article, once they run out, they just don't reply anymore :)

I have taken your advice and solutions highly into consideration, but I will wait and see what ThatMontrealIP has got to say about COI.

It just doesn't make sense that genuine articles are being rejected by who? Who are Sulfurboy and Curb Safe Charmer. I am sure they are NOT authorised to stop the addition of GENUINE content contributing to the EXPANSION of an online ENCYCLOPEDIA. To be honest, I wonder what the founder of Wikipedia Jimbo Wales has to think about genuine contributions being rejected and people being taken for a ride like this.

Your opinion is quite evident and so was that of Zanimum in the beginning, where he said it was definitely a notable topic. Then these cowboys come put a strike through his comment and crucify me, when they have no other leg to stand on they ask for COI info, or just not respond - the exact same thing happened in the Teahouse chat room and also when I asked for advice. No further reply!!! Because noone knows what to say any more.

What makes this worse is, the people reviewing this content aren't Australians, don't care about the need for Australians, don't know the industry and the regulators, and so on. Why do they care?

I will be taking this to the top, I am already putting together a list of users to contact, emails, etc. Both via wikipedia and elsewhere. This is terrible.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg_c1988 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 May 2020 (AEST)

@331dot: hello! you responded at Greg's May 1 request for help at the AfC help desk. I just wanted to make sure I didn't overlook anything in reviewing the sources. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "top" to take things to. This is a community, there are no specific leaders- and I would urge you to not send out emails to other Wikipedia users, instead making use of a forum like the Help Desk, or if it is editor behavior you object to, WP:ANI.

This is a worldwide project; there are not requirements that people live in the country the subject pertains to in order to edit about it or weigh in on it. In fact, in most cases such a rule would be harmful, as often outside views can provide a more dispassionate opinion on the subject- which aids having a neutral point of view. Any user can object to content that in good faith they believe does not fit with Wikipedia guidelines. I also don't think it is the case that users "dont care about the need for Australians". We need everyone who wants to help out. That doesn't mean help should be allowed without limitation or without compliance with guidelines.

You've been offered a very good suggestion above by Rotideypoc41352. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Greg c1988! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Consistent unfair refusals by reviewers, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI on "the Lottery Office"

Hello! I looked for but could not find any disclosure of conflict of interest on Draft:The Lottery Office. Are you connected to them in any way-- getting paid to write the article, know them, former or current employee etc? Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! that's a fair question, but no, I am not connected to them any way. I frequently gamble online via lotteries or sports betting, and used to play online poker too before it was banned here. This year I have used The Lottery Office due to the sports industry not having any sports to bet on due to Covid-19. I have had more time on my hands to be able to submit this article and make these edits as result of being at home, using the template from Lottoland's wiki page. The Lottery Office have been running ads on Australian TV lately. For most players, the first thing we'd do is look up a company on Google for reviews or read about their history or details on Wikipedia.

These guys have basically replaced Lottoland, who I used to play with, as Lottoland were sending all of their profits out of Australia. Therefore, being such a significant lottery in Australia, without a presence on Wikipedia, I thought I'd publish an article on them - for both players, and for Wikipedia to be updated on the industry here. Of course there is a benefit for the company too, but after using them, they are generous on their winnings, are completely local and are legit. So it's also a pleasure to see them benefit from it, as they have changed the industry for Australians (the industry here is heavily regulated, the government banned pokerstars, online casinos, lottoland, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg c1988 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I will take your word for it that you are not connected. Regarding your comment above, under the section "Question for administrator", you seem upset at the reviewers. The people you mention are volunteer editors, and they are very good at what they do. We have a bar for inclusion on Wikipedia, and not all articles meet it. The editors who have reviewed this article have vast experience at reviewing proposed articles, so I would cut them a break and recognize that experience. I had a look around for sources, and could not find much other than the stories about the ban on overseas ticket sales last year. Unless you can find more sources that talk about the history of the Lottery Office and report on it in significant detail, I would say there is not enough here to merit an article, per our WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Sorry to be the third to bring you that news, but that's my take on it. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I still disagree with you, and the other reviewers. I have listed all the sources in this article, if you found one, then you are not looking good enough.

I have 3 news articles, one of which is just a mention of The Lottery Office "https://www.qt.com.au/news/the-lott-reveals-the-games-most-frequently-drawn-n/3618774/". However, this is in regards to The Lottery Office's product offering. I added this citation there, I was not requested too. The product offering can be found on the company's website. A citation for this is not needed.

The other two news articles are far more than just a mention. This articles talks about the history and is 85% written on The Lottery Office - https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/definitely-not-a-grey-area-online-operator-skirts-foreign-lotto-ban-to-offer-1-billion-jackpot/news-story/af176f30be9d4c2b240a48349464b5f4.

Then there is https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/the-lottery-office-pushes-back-on-wa-ban/news-story/17455d7ecc9e32b0f3d132c59137464c - this articles talks in depth of the legal difficulties faced in WA and how they overcame that obstacle.

Maybe you should stop being so biased, I am also a volunteer - contributing to an online encyclopedia. I will not cut them a break. This is not a fair decision at all. You are all contradicting each other. I will go ahead and remove the citation that is a "mention". In fact I will remove the whole section, even though, a citation on a brands product offering can only ever be found on that brands website.

Be Realistic and Fair. We are all volunteers. We are all Contributors. There is nothing wrong with this article. After reading the WP:NOTABILITY criteria, there is nothing this article doesn't meet. And if you are in doubt - here in Australia, the location in which this article is targetting, our Commonwealth Law is based on Benefit of Doubt and Balance of Probability. So if this article is sitting on the fence line for you, I don't care. It's valid for entry. You don't have a strong enough case to refuse this article. And I will keep fighting it until it gets rejected from the top - Jimbo Wales

Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg c1988 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (AEST)

See WP:AGF.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased again, please see WP:DNB.Greg c1988 (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2020 (AEST)

Concern regarding Draft:The Lottery Office

Hello, Greg c1988. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Lottery Office, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]