Talk:DotConnectAfrica

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Tkamanzi (talk · contribs)

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Sophiabekele (talk · contribs)

COI reverts

The application was clearly made for .dotafrica

It is not acceptable that Dotconnectafrica keep on reverting edits to .africa from .dotafrica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.30.172 (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DCA has already clarified its position on this matter, so that has to be accepted. Read "Application to ICANN" section of the article for clarification. It seem you are the competition, maybe it is time you learn what the string applied for by looking at DCA application and learn it clearly states what it applied for is a 6-string ASCII domain name and not a 9-string domain ASCII name. So I am not going to mis-inform the public and state that DCA is after a .dotafrica so you could have your .africa.Tkamanzi (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read your application to ICANN on their website http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1276 DotConnectAfrica have applied for the string .dotafrica NOT .africa, also can we keep new comments to the bottom of the talk page so they are in chronolgical order. Thank you. Elekebia (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- This article has been created and the majority of content written by Dotconnectafrica's PR department. Please refer to Tkamanzi:talk. Additionally the majority of references are to DCA's own press releases. I am new here but this appears to be "original research", a conflict of interest and certainly not a Neutral Point of View. Elekebia (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe DCA has had overwhelming media coverage that stand as Independence reference and verifiable. Some of the PR published by the organization is a necessary clarification for the story in the article, however, I will look into reducing nay repetitions along with independent coverage received.Tkamanzi (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be 'a story' it should be an encyclopaedic article. Elekebia (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting together a list of the issues where I believe there are issues that are tagged. Due to the number of references and the editorial style of the article this may take a short while, please bear with me. Elekebia (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

This article has multiple issues that need clearing up, as things stands it is turning into a revert war. Where the principle author is employee of the organisation that the article covers, could advice please be offered on how to contribute and bring the article up to standard. As things stand this reads like an advertisement and is poorly written. I would be happy to contribute in improving the quality, but constant reverts would make this a futile endeavour. Many thanks Elekebia (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're doing an excellent job so far, both in terms of the content you're fixing and in maintaining your equanimity. I also think that there are enough eyes on the page now that we won't have to worry about an edit war. Keep up the good work!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable content for discussion

I would like to contribute to this page and make it better, i think from the previous versions,i can see that some information that has been edited would have been helpful,for instance on the existence of DotConnectAfrica some changes suggest that it was registered in Mauritius ,i think its an active organization that is registered, some of these details can be edited right ? Martin Otsi (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable content for discussion (old)

"Prior to the ICANN Board Approval, DCA had provided official support on behalf of ICANN by proactively lodging official correspondence with the US NTIA in order to buttress the entire process. Open Letter to NTIA making a preliminary case for the .africa gTLD[3]"

This letter was not written 'on behalf of ICANN', it was written by Ms Bekele and copied to ICANN . Is the any evidence of an ICANN mandate to write a letter on their behalf? If not this should be rephrased. Elekebia (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No ICANN does not give a mandate. However it is written on behalf of ICANN and support of its activities of its the new gTLD program. It is suppose to be written by Ms. Bekele and was also sent to ICANN. You need to understand how ICANn works before you assert if ICANN should mandate people to write a letter. ICANN is made up of stakeholder groups and DCA happens to be one, therefore, when ICANN initiates its own program mostly proposed by its stakeholders, its stakeholders either support it or oppose it. So DCA was a very active supporter of ICANN's new gTLD program and so DCA sent various letter to NTIA in support of ICANN's program. You can rephrase based on this if you like. ThanksTkamanzi (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key point here is that Ms Bekele wrote a letter in support of ICANN's program, this is different to writing on behalf of ICANN. I shall have a think on how to best convey this without diluting the obvious effort made by DCA, and rewrite accordingly. Elekebia (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just eliminated the "on behalf" word with and simply replaced it with "In support" so done. thanks.Tkamanzi (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To date, DCA’s body of work accomplished on DotAfrica (.africa) has set the ground breaking for potential of what a gTLD can contribute for Africa and has set the trend and innovation and informed the African and Global public.

DCA therefore believes that its governance structure, and the types of strategic partnerships that it has already created to establish a fully-fledged registry service, coupled with its strategic advisory board and the supportive endorsements already received from governmental/inter-governmental bodies would help drive its mission and vision for the realization of a successful DotAfrica.

DCA’s increasing levels of success achieved and accomplishments thus far on .africa is chronicled on its website[114] Major Accomplishments[115] Major Milestone [116]

Wikipedia is not a directory. To point the reader to DCAs own website where accomplishments are chronicled to me seems nonsensical. Please could we be pointed towards some independent notable sources lauding DCAs accomplishments? If not this whole section is a candidate for deletion. Elekebia (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I almost agree with you here ;) I was struggling with it as well. It was then easy to reference to the website than look through the hundreds of articles written on DCA... ok give me sometime to look for articles that substantiate the claim. This was good catch. Thanks and appreciate good suggestions. Now we are getting somewhere.Tkamanzi (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I have some (many ;)) other comments, but will focus on rewriting what we have discussed to date before addressing those. Please could you be so kind as to sign you comments so we can keep track of things. Elekebia (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the above section "ground breaking for potential of what a gTLD can contribute". I have corrected it with proper reference. I think this should work. Let me know if you see other sections the same. thanksTkamanzi (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good start, but needs cleaning up a bit - I will try and help, but good work. However I don't think you should have removed the tags yet as the issues still remain and I have re tagged the article. Thanks. Elekebia (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the issues" that remain please? you can't be leaving the tag there forever. You can put it up when you have identified the issue to be worked on. It has been over 5 days since you have it up and you had only 2 recommendations. Please let us not make the article look like it has more problems that it does. That is not fair. Please only put the tag back when you only have recommendations on changes. thanksTkamanzi (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of problems. I have a full time job and will assist as much as possible when I have time. I have requested the assistance of other editors. You full time job is in DCAs press team, perhaps you could assist in getting other neutral editors to contribute rather than making edits that IMHO are biased and reverting anything you don't like. This would be a far better use of your time and would assist in getting a quality article out of this process. The tags should stay until the article meets Wikipedia quality standards.

As you and I can't seem to agree you will notice if you read the talk page that the article is flagged for other editors to help out. There are 4 tags, perhaps you could indicate on a per case basis what you do not believe is fair and why. Elekebia (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest is should be removes as it is already declared. You also add another tag saying it is poorly written which is subjective and without no contribution. While I understand that "you have a full time job" and also the "you are new to Wikipedia", how come you can say it is poorly written and see a lot many problems and you are too busy to assist and you happen to have chosen this particular article of interest to edit?. So far, I have not seen anyone come to the rescue, in fact this article has been there for long and no one made a comment until you made it an issue. Again I have sent some of the paragraphs to other people to see if they see any problem with the neutrality. But I am still curious and puzzled by some one "who comes as a new editor", finds an article problematic and does "not have time to edit it". Therefore, I suggest that you spend few hrs trying to build your credibility as Wikipedia editor by contributing and let us see what your version of neutrality and verifiability is. Otherwise, I can only see your contribution as a biased editor who is trying to distorts DCA's Wikipedia image. I kindly suggest you also take this as an advise. Since I have already declared my conflict of interest, I shall be removing the COI and poorly written tag and will give you 12 hrs to contribute to some of your list of issue. I hope you call for experienced editors also work. ThanksTkamanzi (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This advise appears somewhat hypocritical from an editor who has only contributed to this article and that of Sophia Bekele the founder of DotConnectAfrica. A discussion has been started on the COI noticeboard, and I note that you chose to delete the 'Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion' placed on your talk page as per Wikipedia policy. My 'version of neutrality and verifiability' is irrelevant, the Wikipedia guidelines apply in this case and are perfectly clear. Elekebia (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is my job to do so like you said I am the PR department, and despite the conflict of interest, I have contributed to a good article which is worthy of contribution. The problem I have with you is not that you are a new entrant, everyone starts somewhere, but you have appointed yourself as a Wikipedia editor and you started a quarrel with DCA from a .dotafrica, which is a point of contention with a competitor. Why don't you tell me where you work full time, maybe we can reconcile if you have a COI yourself. Because at this point I am still curious of who you are what your interest in this particular article? Most Wikipedia editors volunteers in the areas of interest they have in contributing. If you are not then contributing and also think your 'version of neutrality and verifiability' is irrelevant, so what is it your purpose and motive watching this page? please explain. thanksTkamanzi (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.africa

I have put some effort in to rewording this section and removing a link to a document on google docs. This section needs referencing properly, Tkamanzi please could you help out by listing some credible references in this section of the talk page so that I may add them to the main document? Many thanks Elekebia (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look at this and get back to you.Tkamanzi (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Please remember to indent your responses as it makes them easier for other editors to follow. I have indented your comment above. --Elekebia (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICANN's statement

This sentence "ICANN stated that it considered UniForum South Africa to be the only applicant for the .africa TLD" is not correct. The reveal of applications showed a single applicant for .africa (uniforum/AUC), ICANN made no statement, just published a database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.184.238.107 (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laylah has kindly addressed this for you. Elekebia (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I cited that statement to says "On Reveal Day, 13 June 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) confirmed that UniForum South Africa is the only one applicant for the .africa Top Level Domain (TLD)." Do you think that my sentence is an inaccurate summary of that sentence? How do you suppose that they confirmed it without stating it? Clearly they confirmed it to the reporter. I didn't say that they stated it publically. We can certainly change the sentence in this article to use the word "confirmed if that'll make you happier, IP editor. Maybe you could propose a substitute?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why we are discussing UNIFOUM on DotConnectAfrica Wiki. I also agree with laylah that ICANN confirmed what everybody has applied for and not the way Elekebia stated it. This was my problem with Elekebia. I find your interventions biased, because this is not a forum to present here says, but fact. You can set up a page for UNIFOUM and discuss their .africa outcome, but I do not think it is appropriate for your to mix the two. Additionally , you also said that the bid by AU is transparent and all in support and UNIFORUM. DO you know that for sure? DId you know that DOtConnectAfrica challenged the entire transparency issues? SO why did you do not that parallel to this "fact" that you wrote? I am going to delete that please. I do not find that you have the subject matter expertise to be analytic la and know the entire story on .africa to insert whatever you like. This is not good. As I see it , the whole article is badly written and the fact that you deleted entirely the whole related facts on DotConnectAfrica validates my earlier suspension of what your interest is in this article. To promote UNIFORUM? There is a deliberate sabotage being performed misappropriation of facts on this article and a whole work that too nearly hrs and hrs has been deleted without even confirmation of deletion. One should be have been rewriting an article on section of the problem it saw, but you have deleted the entire article without giving any time for the articles to be rewritten. Why did u do that? I have already stated I have asked assistant from other writers to assist. I do not think it is appropriate for whoever deleted the entire wiki. Therefore, I am going to put back the article the way it was and we can edit it accordingly. You can put back the tag if you like. ThanksTkamanzi (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tkamanzi, I have reverted. Please remember that Wikipedia is in the 'Real World' and what you are doing can have long lasting consequences. Perhaps take a break from the article for a while and see how it fills out. Many thanks Elekebia (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_in_the_real_world. Many thanks. --Elekebia (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the information about UniForum because it was mentioned in the sources explicitly in connection with DCA's attempt to become the .africa registrar. I don't know anything about UniForum or the AU's position on the matter. All I know is that an article in a real-life newspaper said that the AU said that. It was a quote. You can question everyone's expertise to your heart's content, but it's not going to help. We go by sources here, not unverifiable claims of who's an expert on what. I deleted most of what was in the article before because it was incoherent and sourced to documents produced by DCA, which are not reliable for the kind of information they were being used to support. You should think about suggesting changes on the talk page here, maybe one per section, and we'll all discuss if they should go into the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governance section location

"moving governance structure section before history section; seems more appropriate somehow" - Good edit. I was going to suggest this as I felt DCAs efforts in promoting .africa were being diluted with the ICANN issue on top, I guess I have learnt something else - Just Do It. Elekebia (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, just do it! The lingo around here is "be bold." Check this out for why it's not only OK to just do it, but encouraged: WP:BRD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for moving everyone's comments around

It would be really helpful for the purposes of keeping the discussions straight if we could just start new sections here whenever there's a new topic to discuss. It's not like we're going to run out of space.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest subject matter experts to edit this page

I have called editors that have experience in this area to edit this page. For eg. there was the issue of registry and registrar that was mixed up and the whole ICANN TAS issues etc.. while I appreciate everyone trying to improve the article, I also should think we should not misappropriate the facts in light of not understanding the industry. I strongly suggest for other experienced editors that know the industry to intervene.Tkamanzi (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please try to work within the guidelines of wikipedia? You're reverting without discussing your edits, and that's not helpful at all. Also, if you're calling in editors to help you, that could be a violation of WP:CANVAS. Also, whether or not they're experts is not relevant here. What's relevant is what can be supported by reliable sources. Everything I put into that article was supported by a citation to an independent source, see WP:RS for information. You're putting in a lot of nonsense that is *not* supported by independent sources. You may be an expert on DCA, but you're not an expert on WP. Please take some time to learn how things work here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I believe there are some erroneous info in the article. Also, can we continue to work on the article? is the reason you deleted the whole article because it is not supported by independent sources? Please advise. You say above that I cannot call for help for other editors, however I thought it was part of Wikipedia policy in fact to request for independent editors. Can we do that please? The reason I ask this is because you have deleted a lot of material and the article can get help with someone other than the two of you who have already issues with the way the original was written. Nothing personal. Thanks Tkamanzi (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good place to start would be for you to list the erroneous info. Thanks! --Elekebia (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External link to be placed in article once page protection expires

Just noting it here for future reference:

"DCA's Commentary on ITWebAfrica Story: The 185,000 Misunderstanding on .africa". DotConnectAfrica. 25 August 2012. Retrieved 5 September 2012.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on DotConnectAfrica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]