User talk:JonahAragon

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, JonahAragon. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page CalyxOS, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Also GrapheneOS and especially Draft: Privacy Guides. Any close connection to declare? Yae4 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disclosed this relationship already, and this is of course why Draft:Privacy Guides is an AfC. I volunteer with Privacy Guides, and don't receive financial compensation, so WP:PAID is not applicable. I edited the CalyxOS article because the current Reception section cites some random blog instead of the original reporting on the subject. Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 13:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your infobox on Privacy Guides COI. Which "random blog"? You cited a Tommy Tran self published github too? Isn't TT a moderator for GrapheneOS forum? The CalyxOS criticism is looking like partisan PR campaign, similar to D. Micay Tweets - not independent, reliable sourcing. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kuketz Security blog" noting some security shortcomings. I'm unfamiliar with TT's affiliations or GrapheneOS' moderators. In retrospect I can see how the last sentence of my edit could be construed as self-promotional, my intent was just to provide context. However, I stand by the other information I added, and I think it is important context for readers to have, the CalyxOS article currently reads as more of a CalyxOS endorsement, when in fact there is some valid criticism they have received.

Also, while I do have a connection to the publisher of that report (Privacy Guides), I definitely do not have a connection to either GrapheneOS or CalyxOS. I'll also note that Privacy Guides does not indiscriminately publish user-generated content (despite that section being called a "blog"), it has fact-checking policies in place, and it is independent of all the projects it recommends or otherwise covers. Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 16:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare the Kuketz cite (German) versus the Privacy Guide cite, Kuketz is much more detailed. Kuketz has been a source for The Register, RepublicWorld, Tom's Hardware, and is respected, in some circles, as an expert. It shows in the detail of the cite. I feel Privacy Guides would fail a reliable sources noticeboard, and Kuketz would pass, but we could take either or both for more opinions. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily have an issue with Kuketz, my opinion and justification for making the edit was just that PG's overview covered some information about CalyxOS which the Kuketz cite or other sources in that section did not, so it just added additional context. PG has been a source for Wired, Computing, Wirecutter, and is also respected in some circles as a reliable source. I do know that PG is planning on revisiting this topic sometime in the next few months anyways, so I can also revisit this when a more up-to-date/thorough look at CalyxOS has been published.

I just don't see the need to shield CalyxOS from criticism on Wikipedia, nor why no comparison to GrapheneOS is mentioned on the page at all, despite them existing in the same category and frequently discussed together (https://www.google.com/search?q=calyxos+vs+grapheneos). Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 18:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is only tangentially related, but as I'm looking through Wikipedia's policies further I happened to notice you yourself cite our project at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 272 as evidence of reliability, back when we operated under the privacytools.io domain name :) Jonah Aragon ^|Talk| 18:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me the "GrapheneOS releases are quick" type info you added to GrapheneOS is already in that article, with different cite. The CalyxOS last sentence is significant criticism, of similar type and more. Yes, I disclosed this cite mistake of mine already, most recently at your draft Talk. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Privacy Guides (August 4)[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 DoubleGrazing 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 websites). 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 only sources offering significant coverage of the subject are the four Tweakers articles. These are by two different writers. So depending on how you look at it, these count as either one source (= publication) or two (= writers), but either way we need to see more to fully establish notability. (And not more from the same publication or writers, please!)

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:Privacy Guides 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JonahAragon! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Privacy Guides[edit]

Hello, JonahAragon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Privacy Guides".

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. When 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!} 06:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]