User talk:Millermk

This page is archived frequently because I like short talk pages. You can find the archives on the right. Please feel free to continue an archived discussion here, I still care/want to talk about it!

Archives

Sorted by date:

Hello, and welcome to my talk page! Feel free to leave me a note about whatever's on your mind, especially if you think I may have made a mistake, because I definitely want to do my best to fix it up! I really appreciate it when people add a new heading, sign their comments, link to relevent diffs, and generally follow good talk page ettiquette, so please do so. millermk

07:20:01, 17 April 2015 review of submission by 125.213.191.72

125.213.191.72 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:MyNetFone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Millermk,

Thanks very much for reviewing the page and providing feedback. I was disheartened to hear it hasn't made it through based on the history section as I had just changed this from a timeline format (which I had to remove potential of an advertisement tone). As the previous reviewer said it needed to be in a paragraphed format as opposed to timeline, as it appeared more like a fact sheet and needed to be more readable/flow. Now it has been pinged for being too closely aligned to a essay - I feel I am at a lost here.

Is there a chance that only one reviewer (ie you) goes over it going forward, just to stop contradictory information. As you can see I have submitted a few attempts and each rejection, especially when you feel contradictory direction was given, starts to really deflate you.

Thanks,

Lauren

125.213.191.72 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@125.213.191.72: Hi Lauren, I understand your frustration with getting declined a number of times. Unfortunately, the AFC process is often abused by businesses who try to create articles about themselves, and invariably end up doing so in a way that makes the article unsuitable for Wikipedia. Sometimes reviewers are quick to flag something as advertising and not really provide a lot of help because it can be frustration to deal with the amounts of blatant advertising that comes through AFC. That being said, I can see that you have put a lot of effort into your article, and have a lot of sources which is great. I have just gone through and edited the company history section for tone, which essentially addressed the comment I left. What I meant by my comment basically was that encyclopedia articles shouldn't sound like a story. Now as I see it there are two small issues remaining with the article. The first is one sentence about the NBN which I think could use a citation. I'm sure you could check the article on NBN to find a source for that. It's not a highly contentious fact, but I feel a citation is in order. The second issue I see is the Research & Development section. The items in it seem loosely correlated, and some of them a bit advertorial. I have considered how we could approach this and I essentially see two possible solutions. The first would be to cut down the section only to major industry firsts which have had a large impact. The second would be to remove the section altogether. Let me know what you think about this, and we can see how to proceed. If you put the article up for submission again without consulting me, I cannot guarantee that I will be the reviewer (it's unlikely in fact) as that's not how AFC works. However, if we address these last two issues that I pointed out here together, I will be happy to publish the article to the main space for you. Millermk (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Millermk, thank you so much for all your feedback and help to get this article through. I have cited the NBN line, and tried to reduce the R&D section. Can you please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.191.72 (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@125.213.191.72: For me the R&D section is still not quite right. Points 3 and 5 (regarding number porting and specialised platform) seem more like products/features rather than real R&D efforts. It's not clear how either of those required significant R&D. I don't want to make you feel like I'm trying to make you get rid of your content but I think those either have to be reworded to show why they were the result of significant R&D, or removed. Once that is done, feel free to resubmit. Let me know when you resubmit. I will need to do one last pass to fix up a few formatting things and then I can approve the submission. Millermk (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Millermk,Okay thanks! I have decided to delete it all together. If I resubmit it now, will you be all set to review it?

@125.213.191.72: I published the article. Good work! :) Millermk (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SATMAP Inc.

Hi, you have reviewed my article on SATMAP Inc. a few days ago. We have corrected the points that you have pointed out, and have shifted out to the main space due to a nearing deadline for our assignment, as we have observed that many others have been doing so without any issues. However, another reviewer has claimed that the whole article is an advertisement, and I would like to seek your comments as he has not given any constructive comments on his talk page despite me asking how the article can be further improved. Thank you. ABonheur (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ABonheur: Unfortunately, I do not believe the issues have been addressed. The article still largely read like an advertisement. Typically with AFC, a reviewer moves the article to main space. While I understand you have an assignment deadline, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to facilitate course work, and this cannot be allowed to dictate the time at which the article is published. In it's current form, I agree with the tag for speedy deletion as an advertisement, and more specifically I agree that rather than deletion, moving it back to the draft namespace until it is appropriate for publishing. I would like to provide more specific advice, but since the bulk of the article is advertorial in tone, it's hard to point out one specific thing. Try looking at other articles about companies on Wikipedia to see example if you're not sure what it should look like. Millermk (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Millermk: Hello, however, I thought that the main issue with the system features was it being too technical initially..? ABonheur (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ABonheur: Ultimately I think that much of the information in the details section probably just didn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. Its hard to write such a section without being technical or sounding like an advertisement. Its hard for me to be specific as the articles appears to have been deleted. Millermk (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Millermk: Thank you for your comments. My group will continue to work on ways to improve as we contact the administrator. ABonheur (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:33, 19 April 2015 review of submission by Afroflare

Afroflare (talk · contribs)
- Draft:EMM (Exclusive Men's Magazine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello there, please I would like to know how many citations are needed before my article can be published and what kind of citations are seen as notable. Thank You in advance Afroflare (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Afroflare: As another editor pointed out on your article, Wikipedia requires reliable independent sources. See the comment on your article for links to the explanations of what those mean. As for a number, you article is quite short. The general rule is perhaps about three sources, but more as the article grows because sources are generally needed for most of the information in an article. So at the size of your article, three would probably be enough, but only if they are good sources, ie reliable, independant, and significantly focused on the topic of your article. Millermk (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MyNetFone has been accepted

MyNetFone, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Millermk (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Symbio Networks Draft

Hi Millermk,

Thank you so much for your help with the MyNetFone page and submission issues. I found you so helpful I was wondering if it would be at all possible to provide me with some advice, on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Symbio_Networks ? Sorry to seek your assistance out again if you have a lot on.

Kind regards,

Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.191.72 (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@125.213.191.72: Hi again Lauren! I have given the article a quick pass and it seems that the reviewers have given you the right feedback. I don't really have time at the moment to go through and edit it, but I think that you should be able to make a big start on making the article more neutral. For example, remove "Australia's largest" from the first sentence (you could put it somewhere else). The next sentence "Symbio Networks specializes in ...." is also very non-neutral. I would use an infobox like the one in the MyNetFone article to list the services offered. The "facts" section will probably have to be very pared down if not removed to get the article past reviewers. Hopefully that provides a bit of help as to what needs changed. Millermk (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Millermk Okay thanks! I'll start there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.191.72 (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Millermk. Okay I have changed those parts, the difficulty is though all the points included are factual, so it's hard to know what referenced comments will be pinged for advertising. I have tried including some competitor info to balance it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.213.191.72 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Millermk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Millermk! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of fictional Microsoft companies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional Microsoft companies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Microsoft companies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ajf773 (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]