Talk:Apollo Root Cause Analysis

In an attempt to respond to the Wikipedia editors comments, this article has been significantly revised. I have replaced the lists with prose, made it less like an essay, added many internal links (9) and made it more Encyclopedic. I hope the revision resolves the previous issues. I need to put the notation below figure 1 that I am the author, etc., but can't find out how to do it. Can anyone help? ARCAMAN 23:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangano (talk • contribs)

Several links have been added to this page. ARCAMAN 00:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangano (talk • contribs)

I appreciate the remarks from the editors of Wikipedia and will do my best to Wikify it. There are several links in the making and were suppose to be in the original but were overlooked. ARCAMAN 17:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse Me

The four principles of causality are theories indeed and I would welcome anyone refuting or adding to them through legitimate discussion, but to dismiss this information as spam (inferring an ugly deception) seems to imply there is no place for knowledge in this work. These theories are well publicized and have been for more than 15 years and in that time not a single person has refuted them. The fact that Apollo root cause analysis is the leading root cause analysis methodology in the world should lend some credence to its value. The fact that most major comapnies in the world use this methodology shuold also provide some measure of value. In leui of these facts, how is it that the opinion of one person unschooled and unpublished in the subject matter at hand can make such a value judgement?

There was never any intent to deceptively use Wikipedia for financial gain, only a true passion for helping people be better problem solvers. If this is an illigetimate use of Wikipedia I am truely sorry and request that you delete it along with every other reference to other comercially available RCA products listed on the Root Cause Analysis page. ARCAMAN 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangano (talk • contribs)

• I didn't recommend this article for deletion because, as you say, the product has been around for a while and has a following. Nevertheless, when you write about your own commercial product or your own theories, you have an unavoidable conflict of interest. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia guideline on WP:Conflict of interest: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." Please read that guideline in its entirety.
  
  Furthermore, your contributions to Wikipedia cite your own self-published books and articles. This practice is contrary to the Wikipedia guideline on "original research". Please read, in particular, this page: WP:Original research. Here is a quote: "If a contributor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the contributor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." Now, a self-published book, or a book published by a company that you own, is *not* a reliable publication. I am sure that you can see that allowing this would open the floodgates to any number of crackpot entries. As a remedy, I suggest that you allow others to write and edit all articles that deal with you, your products, and your theories. You can correct egregious errors of fact, but more than that is skating over the line.
  
  These kinds of mistakes are very common in Wikipedia, especially for authors and artists who want to make sure that their beloved creations are well-described in Wikipedia. I don't want to discourage you from participation — far from it! — but I do want you to realize that there are tough guidelines in place for this kind of thing.
  
  Finally, just a small detail. When you place a comment in the Discussion page of an article, please sign your comment with four consecutive tildes. Wikipedia will then automatically replace these tildes with your user name and a time stamp. Observe, I am doing that right now: —Aetheling (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Aetheling, Thank you for the comments and I will do as you requested. I have many followers and will ask one of them to go thru this article and write it to the Wikipedia standards. Articles about Apollo RCA have been published in more than 17 different publications in the last 20 years; some with peer review. These references will be added by someone. I thought I did type four tildes. I'll try it this time. --ARCAMAN 04:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangano (talk • contribs)

This smells like spam to me

This "article" is almost entirely the work of one person, Dean Gano, who is writing about his "theory" of causality and not coincidentally referring readers to his company, RealityCharting. This appears to represent a huge conflict of interest. I'm sorry, this just reeks. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. —Aetheling (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

On further study, it seems very clear to me that this article adds very little to the existing article on Root cause analysis, except to point the reader in the direction of Dean Gano's proprietary software, his books, and his company. Furthermore, in eight articles someone has systematically piped links for Root cause analysis to this article. That is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines on advertising. See WP:Spam. I have repaired all of those links. To me, this suggests a strong pattern of deceptively abusing Wikipedia for financial gain. Links reverted: Kaizen, Safety, Reliability engineering, Cause and effect, Cause Mapping, Causality, and Six Sigma. —Aetheling (talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC).

Current Edit

In response to comment above.

70.220.56.83 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stub

I've stubbed the article. Given the complete lack of sources and the coi problems, I think more than enough time has past since we were promised suitable sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)