Talk:DAX (application)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Rexweiner1 in topic Request edit on 3 November 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DAX (application) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
COI
edit | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I've tagged this article for COI per the boxes above. The article needs to be reviewed by an independent editor for NPOV and sourcing; whoever does that, please leave a note there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to have inadvertently made my revisions directly to this page following my COI declaration and in response to editor's criticisms. But I believe the version as it stands now conforms to the required style and would like to have it reviewed, thanks. Rexweiner1 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jytdog! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexweiner1 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Any idea of when this piece might get reviewed? Would like to get busy revising all the other pieces that require my COI revision, but would like to be instructed by this experience first. Thanks!Rexweiner1 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your new version is definitely better: much more neutral in tone, but in my opinion still contains excessive mentions of products, which gives the article a bit of a promotional slant. But the current version is definitely an improvement. Altamel (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Altamel. What's the next step? Can you suggest edits? Eager to finish this up.Rexweiner1 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexweiner1 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your new version is definitely better: much more neutral in tone, but in my opinion still contains excessive mentions of products, which gives the article a bit of a promotional slant. But the current version is definitely an improvement. Altamel (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Any idea of when this piece might get reviewed? Would like to get busy revising all the other pieces that require my COI revision, but would like to be instructed by this experience first. Thanks!Rexweiner1 (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Request edit on 3 November 2015
editLooking for editing suggestions on this entry, after several revisionsRexweiner1 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)