Talk:DoITPoMS

contains content that is written like an advertisement

Many thanks to Theroadislong and DoubleGrazing for their helpful comments. My aside about there perhaps not being so many published papers about Wiki was somewhat tongue-in-cheek - I'm sure that there has been a lot of scholarly interest in it. DoITPoMS certainly has been the subject of far fewer specific publications, although it has in fact received a lot of on-line attention in a number of ways, over an extended period. I could certainly add some information about access levels.

I think that I now have a feel for the nature of the concerns that have been expressed, and I should perhaps emphasise that I am completely in favour of the information in Wiki articles being demonstrably independent (free of vested interests), factual and verifiably accurate. I'd like to have a go at uploading a new draft of the article, in which I've attempted to address the concerns. I would nevertheless anticipate that much of the structure and coverage of the initial draft would be retained. Do people feel that this would be worthwhile? Of course, I completely understand that no judgements of any sort can be made until a new draft is available for inspection.

Incidentally, I would certainly be interested in making some sort of contribution to WikiProject Materials, which sounds like a very useful initiative. I'll aim to get involved in due course. BillClyne (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@BillClyne I am here to help .. Thanks alot for starting this. I will come back add some references and some required information and I am sure we then publish it. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. Incidentally, as I say, I am keen to help with both the WikiProject Materials effort and that on WikiProject Education. I just need to work out how I can best do this.

Regarding the DoITPoMS article, I have in fact drafted out a revised version of it, and tried to submit it. The revised version does include some more information and I've also tried to remove anything that looks as if it's blatantly promotional. Of course, this isn't so easy, since almost anything about the venture could be construed as "advertising" it, but I have, for example, removed the names at the end and also a citation to a paper that I authored. It sounds as if you may not be able to see this revised version. Perhaps you could let me know about this and, if necessary, point me towards the best way to get it uploaded - I do have a copy of it! Thanks again for your help. BillClyne (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@BillClyne you can add it to your Sandbox and then link to here. I have finished adding references, remove promotional wording, and proof-read it.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. So I will leave that honour to you. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I've put the latest version into my Sandbox. I look forward to hearing whether it can now be published. Thanks again for your help. BillClyne (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@BillClyne all clear, go to Draft:DoITPoMS (not your sandbox, I have removed that to avoid problems), on the right hand side under 'More' > move > move to article. That is all you need to do. Good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have done that, or at least I think I have! Hopefully I'll understand the Wiki system and protocols in due course! BillClyne (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I've received a message indicating that the article (still) reads like an advertisement. I'm not sure what to do now. Should I attempt to revise it further (and, if so, are there particular changes that you think I should make)? BillClyne (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@BillClyne ignore it. it is a one editor opinion. You can disagree. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to do this, but what happens now? Has the article actually been published and, if not, what else should I do? How is a final decision taken in cases like this - is there an arbitrating editor? BillClyne (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@BillClyne the article is online now. It will take time for google to adopt it but your work here is done. Go add and edits more articles FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

OK - thanks again for all of your help. I'll have a think about what other stuff to do next! BillClyne (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@BillClyne writing biographies can sort you out for now until you figure out your next step. Many excellent materials scientists do not have a Wikipedia page. However make sure they are notable, see Wikipedia:Notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s online now!. Please @BillClyne ignore @One5956 for now. FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify the current status of the DoITPoMS article. It appears to have been taken down again, apparently by Theroadislong. The complaint is the same - ie that it is promotional etc, despite the fact that serious attempts have been made to address this. Could you let me know whether this actually represents the end of the road - I can accept a road being relatively long, but not endless! This is a shame, since quite a number of people have expressed interest in the article, and disappointment that it appears to have been taken down again. I presume that there is some kind of hierarchy among Wiki editors. Is Theroadislong able to over-rule other views? Could you also clarify how I can copy messages such as this to other interested parties, such as SnoozyTurtle? (I've tried to do this via the +person icon, but I'm not sure whether this has worked.) @snoozyturtle BillClyne (talk) 14:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@BillClyne I had a good feedback from Theroadislong. It mainly indicate that 12 of the sources are to their DoITPoMS website, and Wikipedia has very little interest in what that says, we need independent sources that cover the topic in-depth.

My believe is we need to reduce the amount of information on the current WP to use the DoITPoMS website less FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

inappropriate external links!

@Onel5969 what inappropriate external links? the whole article does not even contain an external link! Have you read the article or you just looked to the previous reviewers comments and put tagged the article. Do your due diligence please 🙏 FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Oh, and you should pretty much cease your personal attacks (as per above), it could get you into trouble. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969 that is odd! Read your tag first, it says that. and you are the person putting these tags and now threatening me. Hmmm! FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, so you're talking about the tag which was placed on this article. Would have been nice to know that. The tag is appropriate. Not threatening you, giving you advice. Personal attacks are frowned upon. You should desist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969 sorry if you have felt personally attacked. I should not have framed my opinion in that way and made it sounds personal. I will amend my comment. But your tag is inappropriate. I have reviewed and amend the article to take out any promotions that is not true. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No worries about the attack, thank you for the apology. And it's fine to disagree, but it's not personal, it's simply policy. And the tag is certainly appropriate, the article has a promotional tone. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)