Orangegray

Welcome!

Hello, Orangegray, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Mysandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Eeekster (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mysandbox

The article Mysandbox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established, unsourced

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

User:Orangegray/sandbox is the proper place for your sandbox. Click23 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

tvtv

I've been looking at your work on the tvtv article. I commend you for trying, because I know it's not easy to contribute to Wikipedia. I can also see that you are trying to abide by the guidelines, but I also see that you are not quite there yet. Your writing is focusing too much on "the vision of the company" on "what it tries to be". You probably aren't even realizing it yourself, because you are so much a part of the company. This is exactly the reason why we have a guideline about conflict of interest writing. Not because people aren't allowed to write about things that interest them or they know a lot about, but because they are usually very bad at it.

So I'll try to guide you a bit.

• Start with what the company/website does.
• Explain the markets/products it operates in (website vs consumer devices (and explain, readers won't know what a CE is)).
• Explain the history of the company. how did it get where it is now
• Explain the technology (but only for as far as how it is special to the company) Details and specs are probably less interesting for a reader (though a link can be handy). The fact that something is based on standards and open technologies might be more interesting for instance.

Try not to write for a consumer, competitor or industry magazine. Assume the person is someone who knows nothing about EPG data. Someone who doesn't even have a TV might have very different questions about tvtv than your consumer. Explain to the world, instead of preaching to the choir. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TheDJ for the comments. I added some references, and will add more references to the history part after reviewing the old archives. Thanks for keeping an eye and your helps.--Orangegray (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see improvement :D. I made some small corrections as you can see in the history. I also have a few more comments.

1. Be wary of acronyms, unless they are about technologies. So especially the first few times, in the article you should write: television instead of TV, and program listings, instead of EPG.
2. Much of what you have under "See also", can and should be used as references to credit information in the article. A few of the others can go under External links. The See also section is for links to other places within Wikipedia, but the the ideal See Also section is a non-existing one because such links to other topics have been incorporated into the article.
3. History section. These should become prose eventually.
4. System section. This is a bit of a hodge podge. Let me show you the first few lines in steno: "we collect data, we structure it. We get our data elsewhere. We deliver it. Widget. Alternative technology. standards. anytime." You see ? there is no story there. try this "we collect data. We get it from who,how,price. Editorial staff ? We deliver it (iphone, widget ?). Technology: one system. based on open standards. DVB-SI. advantages of tvtv over DVB-SI. TV Anytime" But also note that some parts of this are repeating the intro. Perhaps split it into a service and a technology section. Perhaps a part of the intro can be trimmed down, and the real explaining is done in the "service section" ?
5. Try reading the part where you currently mention the widget. What is, what does it do ? Will people understand that from what you have written there so far? Is it important enough to mention inclusion at all? You are trying to show that tvtv tries to use as many ways to make their information accessible as possible. So say that, and give a few examples (but you basically already did that in the intro).
6. Some usage data of the service might be a good idea, but that definitely needs a source when including.
7. Watch out with the capital usage.

The article is definitely more neutral, though still a bit under referenced. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, make sure you distinguish better between the information you provide "tv program information" vs the way in which you distribute it "electronic program guide". I'm aware that in the industry EPG has become a sort of universal name for all program information, but it's simply incorrect English, and it might confuse the casual reader. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Mysandbox listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mysandbox. Since you had some involvement with the Mysandbox redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)