User talk:Filterbob

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

{{helpme}}I'm sure those instructions already make sense to you. The whole thing about cites does not, to me. (yet?) There are not enough examples in the tutorials. Wiki apparently needs more proofreaders who are able to FORGET what they already know during evaluation of material intended to convey instruction. Even what you placed here as an individual-to-individual effort leaves out vital data - which is probably obvious to YOU but not to a beginner.

What is your query about citation?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at first my whole submission was sumarily removed for lacking them, with no assistance offered for how to MAKE them. So, fine, I slavishly copied all the relevant portions of what I could see and put in a bunch. Then the system nagged me to include title and stuff. There just are not enough examples in any of the places I read tutorials.

Remaining question - I have multiple locations citing the same reference. Right now they're all separate, resulting in the same reference using up a bunch of numbers. Can those be simplified?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Hello, Filterbob, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Scarpy (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Barracuda Networks, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Barracuda Networks. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you.

why don't you take a look at the actual citation??? You will see that I removed the promotional language where practical, and retained only the explanatory. ... "objective" if you prefer.

That page has become DOMINATED by the inclusion of adversarial editorializing about a perceived flaw in one SINGLE product of a multi-product company. All that diatribe about backscatter (which is improperly named anyway - see outscatter) applies to only ONE BN product. It could only be appropriate to add at least a few descriptive sentences describing their other products. I would have tried to move all that backscatter diatribe to the backscatter-spam page, but I'm too new here to have any idea how to MOVE material.

This conversation belongs on the articles talk page: Talk:Barracuda Networks. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

You are going to have to spell it out. If you looked, you would see that I just joined TODAY.

There is a good tutorial on talk pages here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_(Talk_pages) -- Scarpy (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as I already stated, I just joined. Stop expecting me to ALREADY know what you are trying to say and explain it. And the "one word" change was just one MORE. Long before ever adding that originally promotional material to the page I removed all the hyperbole and comparatives. As I already tried to explain to you in the tiny edit comment box.

So you want to push my comments to the "talk" pages. Why then did you not already push all that material on backscatter to the same place? That material has NO bearing on a page regarding the CORPORATION under discussion. It relates only peripherally to one single product, and still only arguably of relevance. There are a tiny number of people with an open agenda to attempt to hurt the company based on that one perceived problem.

While the controversy may be real, its relevance to a corporate page is minimal. I strongly suggest you break out the products (at least that one) onto pages of their own, and move the "backscatter" material there

The best I can do with my time and resources is to link you to relevant information and tutorials for wikipedia administration related topics. Discussion about the barracuda networks article should be in the talk page for that article, not on your user talk page.

Notability for articles is measured by the number of third party reliable sources sources published on a given topic. There may not be enough to justify a separate article for each.

I don't have an opinion on backscatter controversy, but I believe your recent edits read like advertising and use a self-published source incorrectly. I will put in a request for a third opinion if we can't resolve it.

Again, all of this discussion should be on the article's talk page. If you click this: Talk:Barracuda Networks you will be taken to the talk page for the article and you can edit it like you edit your user talk page. -- Scarpy (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will seek another opinion. I'm not able to understand this bias against first-party documents. Yes, there's a potential for promotion and embellishment, but it's dramatically unlikely that factual statements about their products are lies. Whereas "independent" sources can literally be anything at all, including the rants of biased and unstable individuals. I certainly would agree that the document from which I extracted some descriptive material contained promotion and hyperbole, but I did my best to extract the meaning.

My concern is principally for the viewer who comes to the page because they'd like to know what the company is/is about. I guess I can recognize some rules need to be in place for reasons like so that wiki does not become a lawsuit magnet, but I think that an undesirable result is that the actual research information viewers are LIKELY to be seeking gets suppressed in favor of anything which is considered "independent" and in my opinion that's a worse bias than risking that a little self-promotion gets through.

this is not something so important to me that I can afford to let it dominate my day, so I do appreciate that you have not summarily reversed my suggested changes immediately this time. If you do have the ability to call on such other resources, please do get another opinion.

Read WP:SELFPUB and start using the talk page. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I can see, ALL of those steps are met by the excerpts

Click on this: Talk:Barracuda Networks at the page it takes you to click "edit this page." You can defend the WP:ADVERTISING you added to the article using WP:SELFPUB sources there. Before clicking the "save page" button put ~~~~ at the end of your comments. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]