Now the actual issue is the "offical / main" elive page of Wikipedia stills in waiting for review... 
Well, I tuned up the page a bit. Still in resubmission - not sure who resubmitted it.
Frankly I'm giving up. Unless some big development happens (they actually give some feedback, other than "you don't have enough reviews"), I feel it's time spent that'll never pay off. 
And to appease their "SPA" and "multi accounting" accusations, I put up a disclaimer on my user page that I'm not multi accounting...I simply don't want Elive to die. 
Ok. So lately I've been just every so often updating the wikipedia article. Nothing huge.
But then this happened.
Bodhi Linux's article has NO warnings about not enough sources. It has 30 of 'em.
Elive has been declined multiple times, and has 25.
Is this fair? no...
I wonder what to do... wikipedia is the second biggest referal of the elive website, which means is important, I wonder what can happen if we include a "begging for wikipedia help" in the elive newsletter, with a convincing text with the actual issue and so that everybody will "attack with editions" to the elive articles, flooding wikipedia (by multiple users) with elive references everywhere 
As said before, maybe with an "attack" of tons of editions by different users, this can only be done by including a reference in the elive release announcements
What do you* think?
1 Like
Yeah, that might work. Mention that "wikipedia says that there aren't enough reviews, but this isn't true! if you add some, maybe Wikipedia will be more likely to accept the article!"
I have tons 
but what about a request for collaboration in wikipedia by the users? can you* help me elaborating a convincing message? (probably on this thread) ping @triantares
By that, WP means peer reviews from accepted sources not user reviews.
WPedia is controlled by people intent on creating a encyclopaedia like the Britanica, which IMO is doomed to fail.
What @Thanatermesis states is actually right: WP has become a global (untrustworthy) reference but wants to be much more, soon they'll be kicking out more distros leaving only the paying ones.
I'm not touching WP anymore 
.....If you deliver a short referral, they'll say it's not enough and if it's more they'll say it hasn't been reviewed publicly or that sources aren't verified.
I've tried every option available short of bribery ...... extremely frustrating and certainly not worth my time.
so i think the best will be to tell the story (shortly but convincing) into the newsletters to try get people push wikipedia with the issue and see what can happen (nothing bad i assume, except making WP look like a shame)
just received an email:
so what you* think about asking for help about wikipedia in the newsletter? we really need to have an en.wikipedia.... article of elive, its the second biggest-important source of users from internet (after distr0watch)
BTW last rejection was 1 year ago:
Submission rejected on 29 May 2020 by 1292simon (talk).
Issues found in previous reviews is still present, WP:PROMO issues, external links in the article body. Does the WP:SPA author have a COI that should be disclosed?
Maybe we still have these ones?
What do you mean?
well, seems like -that- was the reason of the last rejection, if we don't have -that- issue at the moment then it should be accepted the next time (unless we have another issue)
In the EliveLinux article the last rejection was: Not enough reliable sources. 
I have a feeling it won't be accepted until that retro-version comes out, with the magazine thingy we talked about. That would be a lot of reliable sources. 
Was it this one? https://forum.elivelinux.org/t/newsletter-giving-the-64bit-for-free-during-1-month-and-other-things/2268
we should not lose the hope, the main wikipedia article is very important for elive, if there's no way, we may be should ask to someone "pro" in wikipedia (a moderator / admin / something) for help with this issue
We already did - thats how we ended up with the EliveLinux article.
Still not getting accepted.
I won't say it again. The issue is references.
The moment you add references, they say they're not good enough or not reliable enough.
What exactly "reliable"is, is at their discretion ..... so there's no way we're going to break through that barrier, once it's there. It's a catch22.
It's a lost cause .... just like WP itself. It's part of the silicon valley big tech imperium now.
It'll prolly get funded by google real soon.
1 Like
that person cannot simply "accept it" ? we need someone with privileges to accept / publish the article
hum... what about this button? @TheTechRobo i think you are the one to click it seems like they will re-review it when asking for the advice... let's at least annoy them lol
I did that multiple times....no reaction, just a pre-formatted message pointing to Howtos.
I hoped being helped by a senior editor would be helpful but ........ same problem.
When submitted, it's a new guy that checks .....he/she sees the previous comments, skims the article and agrees.....and rejects again.
There's no way these people are going to start an internal argument over a rejected submission.
