Talk:WebDNA

OK so far but …

...Continued from RHaworth (talk)

The new draft is OK so far but:

• there are still absolutely no reliable sources that are independent of the subject
• the list of companies who have used WebDNA is useless - I want links to websites which use WedDNA
• I see the phrase RAM-based on this page for example. I would still like a few words of explanation.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, Thanks for the feedback.. I am still working on it and will prompt you for your feedback when I feel I'm close. Donovanbrooke (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Example list of a few hundred (out of thousands) live WebDNA sites for the wikipedia's notability (among other new article contents): proper version with links and unlinked (but possibly more up-to-date) version. Donovanbrooke (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

O.K., having addressed all the concerns above, I think I am close. If the admin does not see this, I will prompt for feedback on RHaworth talk. Donovanbrooke (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Donovan. I have added 3 refs to your article that will satisfy WP:N. As a new good-faith contributor you should take a look at WP:5 in particular WP:RS and WP:NPOV. You should understand that articles in Wikipedia can only refer, what other third-party independent sources have said about the subject. The main problem with our article is that you rely extensively on primary sources (except perhaps [1]), that are not independent of the subject. The references that I included are WP:RS and they demonstrate independent coverage. This takes your article out of life support but I wont recommned you moving it back into article space yet. There are too many spammy words: mature searching and editing capabilities, robust, fast, quickly, fast-paced growth, powerful tags, etc. The tone should be encyclopedic, factual, and above all, neutral, or it will get a rough treatment by other Wikipedia editors. It will give you far less frustrations to fix the issues yourself. Thanks for being persistent with article improvement even after the initial rough treatment. RHaworth is notorious for biting new-comers. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply in preparation. Actually Power.corrupts, I would say I had been more gentle than usual with Donovan. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate the simplicity of WebDNA and the benefits of RAM-based data! I have done this version of your list with proper links. See the source code. I would be fascinated to see it converted to WebDNA.

Thanks. The link now uses some WebDNA to format the list of sites. Here is the WebDNA Source. Donovanbrooke (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note: a) we use < to make an HTML comment visible and b) if "it's" is short for "it is", then it takes an apostrophe otherwise it does not (I assume the same applies in good American as it does in British).

Thanks, yes, will correct that. Donovanbrooke (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You should thank Power.corrupts most sincerely for adding the references that you could and should have found. I will give you a while to follow Power.corrupts' advice re weasel words but I agree it's (!) nearly ready. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to Power.corrupts for the edits/suggestions! (I bow down to your google fu!) ;-) I will get a chance to work on this in the next day or so. Donovanbrooke (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading all the "WP:" articles, eliminating spammy words/sentences, adding pertinant citations, and tripple checking accuracy and grammar, I believe I am ready to move to the article name space. Donovanbrooke (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on WebDNA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121102112013/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157069421.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-157069421.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)