User talk:Elekebia

DCA has already clarified itself regarding the public record and have advised the public via its clarification als posted on thiso Wiki page. I believe you are the one who is causing the editing war and it is not proper what you are doing. Our clarification is as much as a public record as what ICANN has put on their site. Are you not hearing what DCA is saying? or you have a different agenda?. How come you go throughout the body of the website and change everything that was done by DCA in the past to a .dotafrica? Was that not a pulic record you are altering without any due process. Is that not illegal what you are doing. DCA's Campaign was based on a .africa and you are changing the history of what DCA did and altering date to convenience your theory. Please stop it. Thanks

--- I am simply concerned with verifiable sources, which you appear not to be. (Elekebia (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

You are focused on the email ID verses understanding what facts are and changing history. It is not correct. If you are any Wiki writer at all, you will verify for yourself if the article is independent or not. I believe your ID does not exist, so I think you are just hackling DCA. Stating a conflict of interest because of your perception is one thing, you trying to edit an article to change the project history is another. So you should be the one stopping to change the history of the project by putting a .dotafrica everywhere. I will keep correcting this fact until you stop rearranging the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamanzi (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not rewriting the article. I am reverting it. Please by all means correct the article to reflect facts quoting verifiable sources. (Elekebia (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Thanks. Here is the clarification to the ICANN APPLICATION that you noted that should refect the fact. Pls feel free to rewrite that.

APPLICATION TO ICANN The DotAfrica .africa gTLD application was submitted by DCA Trust during the application window that opened on 12 January 2012 and closed on 22 May 2012. DCA hopes to win the mandate from ICANN for the management of the .africa gTLD to enable it administer this resource on behalf of its Pan-African constituency and other stakeholders around the globe.[44]

"...the understanding as presently clarified by this communication is that DCA Trust has applied for the same 'Africa' geographical name string as UniForum and this will be confirmed by the outcome of the Independent String Similarity Panel who will review "applied-for gTLD strings against other applied-for gTLD strings. It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that DCA Trust has applied for .dotAfrica as a geographic name without seeing the exact details of the underlying application which is yet to be evaluated by ICANN or considering the stipulations of the Guidebook regarding String Similarity Reviews and how String Contention Sets are arrived at".

--DotConnectAfrica, Press Commentary on 17 June 2012",[45][46], [47] DCA Trust has made explicit commitment in its .africa application to ICANN that the Trust will establish a full-service Internet registry which will be operated by DCA Registry Services Ltd. in accordance with the technical and operational criteria and other specifications stipulated by ICANN in the new gTLD Applicants' Guidebook.

'Note: Application to ICANN for DCA "AFRICA" geo-string is indicated as ".dotafrica" during the ICANN reveal date, on the ICANN website, dated 15 June 2012.[48]. To minimize public confusion the company has issued immediate press release to clarify its position on the matter stating:

--Hi Elekebia I see you have tagged the site with various things we have already discussed. You say you are a new editor re "I am new here". What can I do to help you. I have declared my conflict, however, I still think the article is written in a neutral manner, as I am capable of doing that despite that I work for DCA or not. Can you perhaps point out where the article is not neutral and fix it? or is your problem that I work for DCA. It is not a violation of Wikipedia policy as long as the articles are verifiable correct?. Maybe we can assist each other to improve it despite that you are new? Otherwise may I ask you to interest other editors to improve it?- Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamanzi (talk • contribs) 04:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tkamanzi, I note that yet again you have removed the tags. The tags have been placed there specifically to encourage other editors to help improve it, something you have suggested. I have requested that an Admin assists with pointing me in the direction of resources that are available to improve the article. Once the issues addressed in the tags are resolved, the would be the time for the tags to be resolved. In the meanwhile I have reverted the tags and would kindly ask that we discuss the issues on the articles talk page where there will be a higher level of visibility and hopefully participation from the community. As things stand you are the main contributor to the article and with your employer being the subject of the article there appears to be bias, which is quite possibly unintentional, but this is the danger of editing COI editing. Elekebia (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps the various tags on this article. I have declared the conflict of interest as per Wikipedia policy. Elekebi, if you think that the article needs improvement, feel free to improve it. However, I am beginning to feel that your interest in this article came with the .dotafrica issue and am not quite comfortable of your own level of closeness to the subject matter. Your entry and interest to edit the article was by insisting that DCA applied for a wrong TLD and you seem to be wanting to know more about ICANN's TAS process. Your intentions therefore can be construed as someone who is investigating from our source to get information. I am disappointed that your curiosity to improve the article does not seem to be one from a Wikipedia volunteer perspective. Therefore, one can see it is not a genuine concern of someone that wants to improve the article but in fact to critic the quality and discredit it. I find this to be a conflict of interest on your side and question your intentions on the entire subject matter and why you got involved to edit it in the first place. Given that you said you are new to Wikepidia editing substantiates easily that your interest in this matter is just to go after DCA's public profile and discredit it in the interest of those your serve. I mentioned to you above there were people that were vandalizing the article repeatedly with unregistered userid, concurrently while you were raising the above .dotafrica issues. If you were genuine, you should have sought protection from the appropriate Wiki editors and got assistant for it.

Even so, the same pattern of behavior exist with someone putting up Wikipedia tags to discredit the article, but not willing to work on it to improve it. Your intention is very questionable. I am going to continue to work on improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia policy, however you will need to stop toggling with me by putting up tags, rather than fixing the article should you have problems with it. I have reported your behavior already to Wikipedia authorities for investigation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamanzi (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

- Please refer to the tags and lets move this discussion across to the article talk page as per the tags. If you look at the talk page (Have you looked yet) you will see that I have requested assistance. Elekebia (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DCA again
Good message on the user's talk page; you're catching on!&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think your use of the word fascinating was on the ball. Have a meeting with Bill W. soon, but will start a bold attempt on the other article in the COI Sophia Bekele when I get back. A difficult article is appears to be a good way to learn. Elekebia (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Many thanks. The positive feedback as well as constructive critique from editors like yourself is an amazing thing, I have spend months of my life over many years reading Wikipedia and it is nice to start to contribute. I took on board your comments about my newness showing through and have taken a couple of days to read the MOS, Policies and various essays to help me understand how things work here. You mentioned the multiple issues 'stack', this is one thing I have not found but I shall keep on searching. --Elekebia (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Help me please (references)
helpme

I broke a ref on the page DotConnectAfrica, here [], I have reverted my edit but can't figure out how to correctly make the edit without breaking the refs again! Many thanks --Elekebia (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime a citation is named in the form, the next time you want to use that citation you simply type   However, if the original ref name= citation is removed, any subsequent use of that named citation breaks because it is calling a citation that no longer exists. Thus, when you remove a section that contains a named citation, you have to first search the remainder of the article for its other uses, and transpose the first use to a section you are not removing there, i.e., find the next place the   is used that you are not removing and replace it with the original full citation:   . Make sense? By the way, because removal of cited information is sometimes looked at with great scrutiny, I just wanted to note that I did not look at the substance of the removal at all but only at the technical problem. Make sure you note in detail in the edit summary the reason for removal. If you need more help, simply repost the helpme template. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, how are you?
Hey, hows the editing going? Having fun on Wikipedia? --UnhappyandNoFriends (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)