User talk:TomRoad-1

February 2021

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my edit added one of the major players in that area. I plan to add all notable products such as to provide users with a useful overview and comparison. IMHO, a top-down approach is the most useful, most agile, and most collaborative way to accomplish this. Therefore, I prepare the pages to be added already by providing a link to a not-yet-existing page. I have already started to write that page in my user space. Please don't discourage users to add useful information. Thanks! --TomRoad-1 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please explain why you undo so many edits to List_of_home_automation_software. There are many users who are discouraged to contribute because their edits are undone. It seems to me that this page can not be improved if it is not allowed to live. IMHO, your undoing is doing far more damage than less-than-perfect contributions. Besides, I sense WP:DISRUPTSIGNS points 4, 5 and 6 in addition to WP:DNB. Please explain why your undoing is more important than the users' contribution. Thank you. TomRoad-1 (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of things that already have Wikipedia articles. A lot of edits are undone because a lot of single purpose editors ignore this and try to add things without the articles - this is a common thing on lists of software across Wikipedia. See WP:WTAF - the articles should come before the list entries. - MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Domoticz (February 16)

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

Please have a look at Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE, Github is no source at all

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:Domoticz 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:Domoticz, 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, 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.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CommanderWaterford, thanks for the quick review and your advice. I edited the article and

consulted Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE and checked that it fulfils inclusion criteria (discussed in reliable sources)
included several references to published, reliable, secondary sources.TomRoad-1 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation in Draft:Domoticz

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the page Draft:Domoticz, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me where is a copyright violation? As the page is deleted and you also deleted the draft in my personal user sandbox, I can not verify your statement. Additionally, I can not improve nor fix the article because it is gone. Please also note that you deleted all of my words as well!TomRoad-1 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TomRoad-1, you will need to contact the admin (User:Fuhghettaboutit) who deleted your draft, you could do so by leaving him a message on his talk page for example. It is unlikely that he reads your messages here without being pinged. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what the deleting administrator wrote: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of https://www.domoticz.com/wiki/Managing_Devices & https://www.topionetworks.com/topics/domoticz-5891c93730937f6ca2000064 and others sites from first edit

Not perfect

No draft has to be perfect before it is published, it just has to be good enough to scrape by, so that afterwards, all editors can improve on it. Wikipedia has a quality scale that starts with Stub and Start, ends with Good Article and Featured Article. In English Wikipedia there are currently 3.6 million Stubs and 7,276 Featured Articles. If you decide to start over on your draft, I recommend you keep the draft short, have minimally three references that are considered reliable sources, and then submit it to Articles for Creation. David notMD (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the impression I got from looking at talk-pages and my own contributions. I contributed as an independent expert in that particular subject, trying to get the 3rd most important software in the field (which, by the way, I don't even use nor prefer) to a software list, next to several unknown and completely irrelevant players. I also saw that I'm not the first person to try doing just this, but apparently, we all fail because Domoticz is not a notable software (it's just the 3rd most used product...)TomRoad-1 (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have to show that the software is notable by writing an acceptable article about it, summarizing what independent, reliable sources say about the software. Then, the software can be added to the list. As for your expertise, that is good but it does not allow you to bypass the policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia one of the world's top ten websites. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Domoticz (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Girth Summit 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Domoticz 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:Domoticz, 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, 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.

GirthSummit _(blether) 16:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TomRoad-1! 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! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential conflict of interest

Hi. The nature of the draft I just reviewed made me wonder whether you were connected with the subject. Please review COI and PAID, and indicate whether either of these apply to you before doing any further work on that draft. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 16:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am in no way affiliated with Domoticz. As a matter of fact, I don't even like the product, I switched to OpenHAB and will move to Home_Assistant soon, because I like them better. I am a SmartHome enthusiast and realized that Wikipedia does not list all the major players in the field (see also Talk:List_of_home_automation_software). Instead of improving Wikipedia's coverage and help out all other SmartHome fans out there, I wasted the last couple of weeks, trying multiple times to submit an article which is rejected for reasons which do not seem to apply for similar articles. I don't see in what way the articles on OpenHAB or Home_Assistant are better. Just because I described the features more more carefully than the others does not mean I advertise them. Those features are described in a neutral way, and I have cited half a dozen independent comparisons of SmartHome solutions which also mention those features (not only for Domoticz, but also the competitor products). I hope you can understand the frustration many of us have experienced while spending our free time trying to improve the usefulness of Wikipedia. A little bit of WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:BOLD and WP:IAR would be appreciated. Thanks TomRoad-1 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for confirming. I haven't looked at the two articles you link to (yet) - it's very possible that there are issues with them as well, but for the moment let's stick to your draft. As I see it, there are two fundamental issues with it which mean it can't currently be published.

First of all, there is the sourcing. You have 22 citations, but the majority of them are to the software's own website, or to download sites such as Github, Google Play, Apple App Store and the like - none of these are independent sources, so they do not demonstrate notability. The only independent sources appear to be blogs and UGC - I can't see anything that would obviously meet the requirements at WP:RS. Better sourcing is going to be required to establish notability.
The second point, which would be easier to remedy if you were able to find better sourcing, is the language. I'm prepared to believe that you have tried to write neutrally, and perhaps this is just a cultural thing if this is the sort of writing you're used to reading, but the tone you have adopted is not compliant with our manual of style. We don't make subjective judgements in Wikipedia's voice - phrases like "One of the strengths of Domoticz is its ease of use" are completely unacceptable. We don't address the reader in the second person (The documentation guides you through the procedure to add your own certificate to avoid a browser security alert). We don't use phrases like 'a wide range of' or 'a large variety of'. What you need to do is make neutral, factual statements about the software, and do your best to avoid sounding like you are trying to make it sound good (or bad).

I hope this is helpful. If you can improve the sourcing, I'd be prepared to give you a hand with the wording, but if the stuff that's already in there is the best there is, there is probably no point in proceeding with this. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 08:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that I took a peak at Home_Assistant just now, and can confirm that it has some serious issues (it's highly promotional in tone, and is not compliant with our MOS in various respects, and I haven't even started looking at the sources yet). I'll try to find some time to go through it and give it a thorough pruning, but I would strongly urge you not to attempt to emulate that article in your own draft. WP:FIRST gives useful guidance on how to write your first article; generally, I'd suggest new editors read that rather than taking cues from existing articles, which may have problems. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Domoticz

Hello, TomRoad-1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Domoticz".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]