User:JonHarder/Archive/1

Please leave a note! I tend to answer on this page, so watch for a response here. If I placed a comment on your talk page, I will look there for your response.

If you are here because I deleted an external link you are particularly fond of, it might be helpful to review WIkipedia policies and guidelines such as what Wikipedia is not, external links and how not to be a spammer.

JonHarder 20:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Source Technologies

Please explain what in the Source Technologies' page does not qualify it as a WP:CORP or WP:Sofware. Wikipedia says that "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Source Technologies meets this qualification...do you need proof of these publications?

Everything within the article is fact so I am not clear of the reasons why it is being considered for deletion. Please explain and I will improve the article and provide more information if necessary.

I have removed the deletion proposal in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelemoore (talk • contribs) 18:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, documenting notability would help prevent this article from being deleted. I was borderline about whether to tag this article until I noted that your edits are consistent with a single purpose account. You may want to evaluate your contributions in light of the "How not to be a spammer" guidelines at Wikipedia:Spam. JonHarder 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Webaroo

Hello. I've removed the deletion tag that you added to Webaroo, as it appears to be notable, with a magazine article written about the software. Thanks --Nick123 ^(t/c) 22:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll clean up some of the excess linking. JonHarder 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

IMO you're going a bit revert-crazy, reverting everything I add to the list of monsters in Power Rangers, claiming that I am a "serial vandal". An AOL IP is a proxy IP, meaning that millions of users share the same IP, and of course, some will be vandals. But I don't think that you should revert everything posted by an AOL user because some AOL users are vandals. Think about this next time you revert the Power Rangers monsters page. Yes, Dragonzord really DID get trapped in an exploding web, if you don't believe me, check YouTube. Or better yet, here is a link to a picture.

http://www.rangercentral.com/episodes/ep023/eppic21.jpg

Also, the Mantis could not have lost his honor, he had no honor, he said so himself. After Trini asked about the Mantis's honor when he summoned putties to fight Trini the Mantis replied "I'm one of Rita's monsters, I have no honor".

Yes, and I accept my responsibility for the error. Every other edit by that IP has been vandalism and I assumed that all edits were by the same person. I'm not sure why you call it an AOL address. It is assigned to a Verizon user in PA which would typically be the same user each time. A couple of things would help that user. Sign up for an account, which will establish a record of good faith edits and avoid the problems of anonymous IPs. Citing sources will enable others to verify edits and ensure they are not original research. Happy editing! JonHarder 12:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Augusoft

I seconded your prod of Augusoft. Reviewing the relevance of that article has been on my list of things to do for a while. I think it would be helpful to expand the reason beyond "nn-corp" because new editors may not know that notation. Maybe at the very least a link to WP:CORP. Just a thought. JonHarder 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. (I only bumped it from speedy to prod.) I've expanded the prod reason; feel free to edit it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-08 19:40Z

Menno Article

Hi Jon,

I saw you translated "my" Menno Article into English. I am proud because I think it is the best that I had written in Wikipedia (took me at least 3 days). Greetings from Berlin, Andreas Hüner ... ;-)I know it must have been "have written (yet)" ...

Thanks for the note. Your English is much better than my German and translating that and several other related articles was hard work for me, but quicker than doing the research myself! JonHarder 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your translation is really good, I'll see if I can proof it further, but so far it looks very accurate. If you want, go over my translation of -> Exclusive Mandate and see if you can find anything that needs to be fixed. (Patrick 00:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

It looks great. I did a pass at copyediting to streamline and simplify some wording. JonHarder 03:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Camtasia Studio

Thanks for untagging this article as advertisement. (Patrick 07:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

It's probably an article I had prodded as non-notable earlier and was subsequently deleted, but it doesn't look bad now and there are links from other articles, implying some notability. You will want to check WP:SOFTWARE to try to meet as many of the criteria there as possible. JonHarder 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I'll review the article based on those requirements when I get a chance (Patrick 00:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

Content Management systems article

Why do you delete the Ever-Team entry in the list of notable content management systems. Ever-Team is in the ECM Gartner Magic Quadrant 2006 and should be in this page. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.254.49.47 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because the anonymous editor, 82.254.49.47 (talk · contribs), which is assigned to ProXad in Paris, is likely to be closely involved with the Ever-Team product and probably not neutral. It would be better for other editors to determine if such an entry is appropriate. JonHarder 02:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Citracyde

~~Strike-through textStrike-through textStrike-through textStrike-through text~~{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}{| class="wikitable" |- ! header 1 ! header 2 ! header 3 |- | row 1, cell 1 | row 1, cell 2 | row 1, cell 3 |- | row 2, cell 1 | row 2, cell 2 | row 2, cell 3 |}of Glory |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Presented to JonHarder for perserverance in fighting spam on Wikipedia |} --A. B. 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for catching that. My cut-n-paste was obviously a bit hasty. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, I posted a response to your oppose vote. Thanks for your concerns. - Mike | Talk 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I do appreciate your gracious response to critique. JonHarder 05:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jon

Hi there,

Thanks for your assistance. The reason I have put my link there the third time because I was not sure who really has removed my link. Was that another user or was it really Wikipedia. I had added a perticular link on Digital camera and that was working fine for last few months. I have added one affialiate link yesterday and that was the time I think my site was identified as an affiliate website which it is not. I have removed the affiliate advertisement and I just wish to inform you that is not a personal website or any affialire website. Please give me your views as I think that the website www.compare-camera.com serves as a content based website which gives only information to the user about digital cameras.

I will make the changes on my website and will make sure it qualifies in future.

Looking forward for your response.

Regards,

Chris Carter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.23.100.173 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful for you to read the extern links and what Wikipedia is not guidelines. The website you mention is not particularly informative or helpful for Wikipedia. It provides no sources and appears to be original research. A quick glance at the site reveals spelling and grammar errors. Wikipedia doesn't need more external links; it is better to spend time improving the article text. JonHarder 23:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 66.93.251.126 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I have added several external links as references today, but am not sure which one you have a problem with. I can't see that any have been removed. Could you help? I know you are upset about the blocking of LAN Gaming Center and at least one IP associated with that. Some of the ongoing behavior connected with that is regrettable and I hope it improves. JonHarder 01:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Test on Freelancer

You put a somewhat patronizing note on my talk page, implying that I was screwing around with the Freelancer article. I really think that page needs to be cleared up.

Anyway, I posted more details on my talk page, so please look at that also. And if you really thought I was screwing around, why didn't you remove the change I made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.150.147 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the diffs. I removed the "testing" at the bottom but left the cleaunup tag at the top. You might consider creating a user account so it is clear if edits are from a new anonymous user or just an experienced editor with an "oops". JonHarder 13:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's really weird, I don't know how that happened. I didn't even go down near the bottom of the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.150.147 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Siamandas links

Hi Jon: I do not see why you have a problem with my putting up links to pictures of the things wikipedia has articles about. I did so after a friend noticed that there were already several references to me and my pictures and writings. And after I saw traffic on my website originating from wikipedia. As a total newcomer this week I am not aware of the protocols. Is it that I am doing it? Would it be valid if others did? it Or is it not to be done at all. Incidentally do you work for Wiki, or are you a volunteer? I guess I am curious how this came to your attention. George — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamandas (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a volunteer who has a watchlist that includes hundreds of articles that I help maintain. The external links guideline specifically prohibits users from adding links to:

A website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for; even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to.

and goes on to expand on this by adding

Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to.

If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines.

It is fairly clear that you should not be linking to websites you are affiliated with. Wikiepdia doesn't need more links to external sites; it needs more quality content. Feel free to contribute to Wikipedia ways that add to the content! JonHarder 20:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I now know the rules. I thought that adding a link to images was an asset.

As a newcomer to Wikipedia I was confused by seeing 2 wiki article on my sites and thought it was wikipedia. Incidentally how did you know I was changing the entries?

I see you are into Mennonite studies. Did you at least look in my gallery on Steibach's Mennonite Heritage Village at http://manitoba.manitobaalive.com/mennonite_heritage_village/ and have you heard of my documentary on the "Mennonites of Manitoba?" winner of a gold Telly film award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siamandas (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You probably did see traffic coming from Wikipedia to your website. If you have a high-quality site and others add links to it, they will probably remain. What isn't allowed is adding links to a site you are affilliated with because of conflict of interest concerns. I became aware of your edits because the Mennonite Heritage Village artice is on my watchlist, which shows me all of the recent changes of articles on the list. You probably have a watchlist also - look for the "my watchlist" link at the top of the page when you log in. If you select that link, it will likely list every article you have edited and show when the last change was made.

I did look at several different categories of your pictures. They are great! You might consider releasing a few under one of the free licenses and uploading them on the Wikimedia Commons for general use (see the "Upload file" link at the left side of the page). That would be a significant contribution since articles tend to lack quality images. I am not familiar with your documentary, and would like to know more. JonHarder 00:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Xputer

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, JonHarder! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch: wonder what that was about. JonHarder 13:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Links

Jon not sure why you believe that the website (www.stockwrap.com) does not qualify under either the Technical Analysis Page or the Stock Software Page. I downloaded there software from a forum that I am a member of and believe it to be deserving of a link on these pages.

Have you actually checked the content on their wiki (wiki.stockwrap.com). It is more comprehensive on some topics than what wikipedia has. Furthermore, I think the users on Wikipedia deserve the best possible knowledge available on the internet.

Chris (27th November 11:06am) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.205.210 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Basically, Wikipedia needs more quality content, not more external links. Adding external links is easy, but not all that useful to the encyclopedia. Read about this in the external links guideline, where you learn that among other things one should not link to wikis. Editing because an external site deserves to be linked here or that readers deserve to have access to an external site is backwards and shows a bias. The best editors here do what is best for building the content of a neutral encyclopedia, not what is best for promoting their pet website. You will note that I was not the first to remove your links, which indicates an emerging consensus that the links are not helpful. JonHarder 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Jon. I can understand that external links are not always a good thing on wikipedia but when they extend the content and education of the reader I believe that they are very relevant. While its true that wikipedia is not a link repository, its also a place people come to learn and then have links to extend that learning. By assuming that wikipedia will have "every single peice of content" is unreasonable I feel. I have as much allegance to this site as you do, but I have also traded for many years and know that finding solid content can be difficult between the sales trash on the internet. Unfornately on wikipedia, many of the editors remove links before even reviewing them on the assumption that they have been placed there for "site promotion". Perhaps if more of the editors reviewed some of the externals links, they may realise that their is actually a huge repository of information available. This is what I believe is the purpose of wikipedia.org and this is why I believe that this sites wiki at (wiki dot stockwrap dot com) should be allowed. (Chris November 27 2006 4:46pm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.241.95 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I'm not convinced by your argument. The external links guideline specifically lists links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors among the sites to avoid. With three inactive contributors plus an admin, the stockwrap wiki falls short of this standard. In addition the articles on the site provide no references, so it fails the verifiability test. JonHarder 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jon, please view this page - Money Flow - this links to an external site that contains no references? How is this different? Even though it was "written by" someone, it was clearly referenced to some degree? (Chris November 28 2006 8:46pm)

Unless author is a well known authority in the field, the external link is not sufficiently verifiable. JonHarder 23:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Website spoofing

You deleted this link from a See also on Phishing with the comment that it was link spam. As an internal link it is not, of course, link spam. Our policy is to maximise internal links both for information and to encourage development. It needs work, but is relevant to this article. I should welcome your reasoning for its deletion, please. TerriersFan 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I reverted that change; it was a mistake. The content has been restored, with apologies. JonHarder 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for help.

I am requesting your help in making the Northkill Amish Settlement page more encyclopedic. Reidhoch 15:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. It may be a week or more before I get to it. JonHarder 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Policy

Your comments on Talk:Comparison of content management systems regarding user 24.72.70.37 would be considered a personal attack and a violation of the no personal attacks policy. Your comments did not focus on the user's content, only on your attempt to discredit the user based on what you felt about the users affiliation. This conforms to one of the examples of a personal attack included in the policy. It would have been better to comment on the user's point of view and content than to try to discredit them based on what you believe their affiliation to be. WebCmsXpert 01:42, Nov 28, 2006 UTC

There is no excuse for personal attacks. I must have been having a bad day. I would like to do better. Do you (or anyone) have suggestions of how to bring up conflict of interest concerns without noting some type of affiliation?

If the author's comment was a comment that demonstrated that they are posting in a manner that violates the conflict of interest terms, then it would be fair to point out the comment and the affiliation and that you think it is a conflict of interest. However, in this case, the author did not mention anything that would be considered biased; the comment appearas to be written from a neutral point of view. In this case, it is unnecessary to raise a conflict of interest objection. Please keep in mind that the focus should be on the content, not the author. An author can be in a grey-zone for conflict of interest but still contribute in an unbiased manner. Please assume good faith, and don't bite the newcomers. In response to your question about suggestions of how to bring up a conflict of interest concern, I would recommend starting by posting on the authors talk page and doing it in a way that is helpful, not critical. If the author continues to contribute to articles in a clearly non-biased manner, then post in the talk page of the article in a manner that shows that the comment itself (not the author) is non-biased and that the author has an affiliation to the non-biased content. If the author continues, then do not hesitate to appeal to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Another suggestion I personally would offer is that if the comment is in the article, then a higher standard of journalism is expected, but if the comment is in the talk page, then a lower standard should be observed. In this case, the comment was in the talk page. The attack was completely unprovoked. Finally, for my own views on the topic, you ended your discussion with a statement of the no redlink policy working for the article. As I stated on that talk page, the policy is not working - I demonstrated about 11 notable CMS systems that are not on the list of CMS systems and that the Wikipedia page accuracy has been affected as a result of this policy. I stand behind those views. The intent of Wikipedia is to have accurate information that is community-written. The end result of the policies on that particular article is against the intent of Wikipedia. This can be easily verified by comparing the list of "notable" CMS systems on that page with the lists of CMS systems included in the external links on that page (ie: cmsmatrix, and cmswatch) - it is clear that the list on Wikipedia is not accurate and appears to an outside observer to be skewed to the open-source CMS systems. The real unfortunate part is that the title of the article is a comparison of CMS systems, and that article is the furthest thing from a CMS comparison - it is just a list of vendors/projects and their platforms. The page really should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebCmsXpert (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What I hear you saying is that responses are best kept basically on-topic and should avoid peripheral comments that show other editors in a bad light. What I saw in this particular case was an unsigned post placed by an editor who was unhappy about an article being deleted and who had been repeatedly told not to add links to the same company. It is reasonable to infer that the user was coming from the position of what is best for his organization, not what is best for Wikipedia. Clarifying the relationship between the two accounts and the recent ADXSTUDIO spam seems pertinent to the discussion. Would there have been a more civil way to connect the dots for other editors? JonHarder 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For fans of this talk page: this is the offending comment; it looks like I was having a bad spelling day too. The discussion on that talk page must bring out the worst in experienced editors, promping scoldings from a series of single purpose accounts: [1], [2], [3], [4]. JonHarder 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

More activity on this. See this edit, my reversion, and the resulting discussion at User talk:Satori Son#removal of personal attacks. -- Satori Son 03:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Amish in the jungle

HI Jon - re Amish in the jungle pix - apologies for reverting before researching - that's never a good idea. I reversed my revert as soon as I saw what was up. But I do want to ask you a question: I understand WP:EL (although I think some other aspects of it are being over-prosecuted lately), but where it gets fuzzy to me is what if I, or some other editor, who have no connection whatever to the photographer, were to think that this link is a worthy one for the Amish page. If I add it to the page as an external link rather than the photogrpaher doing it, would that have been acceptable? I'd have to think about whether I think it is adding enough useful information before doing it, but I am curious about it on a policy level. Thanks Tvoz 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a problem if another editor adds the link, or if the owner presents it on the talk page and there is a consensus to include. I've seen a couple of cases like this in the past few weeks, where someone with a photo gallery adds links to multiple pages. The user has the interest of their own site at heart, not the best interests of Wikipedia. It is best if the more neutral editors of the article decide a particular link's merits. JonHarder 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry, again, for shooting before looking. And thanks for the quick response. Tvoz 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Five

Jon

I notice that you deleted the page on Alpha Five on the grounds that it was advertising.

I respectfully disagree, but rather than get into a protracted back and forth about it can you let me have a version of the page that you have edited that meets your "no advertising" views.

Thanks Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbabwer (talk • contribs) 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard, Alpha Five has been deleted four times in three days by four different administrators (logs) because it qualified for speedy delete in the category of "pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." It is extremely difficult for someone within an organization to write about their own organization from a neutral point of view.

Contributing to Wikipedia has this tip:

New articles which do not comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research, and articles on obscure topics are often quickly nominated for deletion. Please don't take this personally. Sometimes inappropriate material needs to be pruned to allow a short article to grow into a long one in a healthy way, and sometimes it just so happens that an article needs to be pruned all the way to the roots. New articles need a firm seed to get started. If you are having problems of this kind, you may wish to learn about Wikipedia's policies before trying again, or spend some time editing existing articles until you get the hang of things. Wikipedia:Your first article is an excellent introduction.

Your first article goes on to add:

Advertising: Please don't try to promote your product or business. Please don't insert external links to your commercial website unless a neutral party would judge that the link truly belongs in the article; we do have articles about products like Kleenex or Sharpies, or notable businesses like McDonald's, but if you are writing about a product or business be sure you write from a neutral point of view.

The conflict of interest guideline and the software notability proposal are also good background material. I will decline your request to write the article myself. I believe it is of sufficient notability that it will not be too long before an experienced editor will successfully recreate the article. JonHarder 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion then

It ssys the template will be removed until more discussion can take place. Honor the request rather than continuing to dictate what happens on this page. None of you are conscientious objectors, so what makes you an expert? I am tired of this endless dribble that goes nowhere. If you want true discussion than honor it, otherwise leave the template off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.30.145.116 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Let's pick this discussion up at Talk:Conscientious objector. JonHarder 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

remove personal attack

Hello JohnHarder. I would like to ask you to remove the personal attack that you published on the talk page of CMS comparisons. My account is not 'banned' but was blocked unfairly by another administrator because it had an email address in it. This was done before there was any policy of not allowing email addresses, and was done with less than a week and a half notice. The official Wikipedia policy explicitly states that existing users are not to be blocked. That issue has been resolved, and my account no longer has an email address. Anyways, I consider that your response to my comment to be a personal attack (see no personal attacks policy) and would appreciate it if you could revert your comments. It is not acceptable to attack a person based on affiliation. Your comments did not respond to the content of the page but were clearly an attack against me based on your statements of my affiliation. Thank you. --ShanM 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will honor your request and correct the the misattribution of your account being banned. More diligence on my part would have avoided this poor word choice. I will decline to remove my comment entirely. It was not intended as a personal attack or to limit the discussion. JonHarder 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You did not remove the personal attack. Would you like me to take this to arbitration, or would you reconsider removing the personal attack? --ShanM 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected my poor word choice but decline to remove the entire comment. It is not a personal attack. JonHarder ^talk 01:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Philanthropist

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, even though I haven't been all that involved in that article. I have some sympathy with your concerns and am glad it caused some positive action there. JonHarder 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Informavores

Hi Jon,

I've just read your comments about my postings on Wikipedia. I appreciate that Wiki is not an advertising medium - however, I believe the postings were appropriate under the guidance. I note that all of our competitors are listed on Wiki and I was simply adding our name to the list in a similar fashion. For example, our software is used a lot as a flow diagramming tool - and for some reason we have been removed from the list of software that does this - not sure why? Our software not only allows people to create flow diagrams, but to also check the logic is consistent and correct - as a result, we are used a lot in academic circles to help work through problems.

I was particularly careful in the postings to be factual about the software. I'm not sure how information can be posted about our technology and still pass your test - can you please advise? Or at least say what you felt was wrong with my posts as opposed to those of our competitors?

I look forward to hearing from you.

All the best,

Steve

Steve, the main problem is the conflict of interest when one writes about their own business or product. I encourage you to add to articles in the general area of your expertise; I'm sure you have useful information to contribute. When it comes to a product or organization you are affiliated with, the way to incorporate it into an article is to make a request on the article's talk page and let more neutral editors decide if it is sufficiently notable to be incorporated into the article. One of the best ways to do this is to cite a third party source that asserts Informavores notability such as "one of the top three ..." or "has a 45% marketshare ..." (you get the idea). I recently was cleaning up a good deal of self promotion of another company, but when I was able to dig up a reputable report on marketshare, I actually put back some of the information and eliminated most competitors because combined they had less than a few percent marketshare!

If you have reason to believe your competitors have been adding information about themselves contrary to Wikipedia's best practices, let me know and I'll check it out. In many cases, maybe most, it is obvious when that happens. JonHarder ^talk 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

CO

made yesterday regarding information about Extreme Networks. Is there some rules that I violated? Please let me know so I came make the proper edits to comply.

Thanks, Ed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edchao (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Please read all of WP:COI carefully. Also read the two essays listed at the bottom. I suggest you provide your relationship to Extreme Networks on your user page. I will again revert your edits and await your affiliation disclosure. JonHarder talk 00:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)