Talk:Diversified Technology

Tags

To not flood the AfD with off-topic nonsense, could you explain the three tags? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

References

Are all those references applicable/valid? One states at the bottom the source is the company itself i.e. it's a press release and another consists mostly of "the company states..." also little more than a press release. I can't see any direct connection to the text in the article. I'll refrain from removing them just now since there is some activity at the moment which may make the appropriateness/relevance clearer. --pgk 19:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Certianly. The information should be incorporated into the text as we continue along this road. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps you'll change your mind when you get to them, as press releases they are essentially primary sources and my quick scan down suggests not much more useful unless we are going to build a product list, but I'll leave well alone for now. --pgk 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Within the embedded industry most news for a company comes via their websites or press releases. The only other way I've ever seen Diversified Technology (or other similar companies for that matter) in 'news-worthy' publications is when one of their staff writes an article for the magazine. Most articles in industry magazines don't deal with companies, they deal with products and the technology behind them. In my classes, at lease, that's what I've seen. If those company-written articles count as sources more than what you see as press releases, I can see if any turn up. Dbmays 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither. Both would be primary sources and has limits on scope for how you can use them (the company itself has an obvious bias which doesn't sit comfortably with NPOV). See WP:RS --pgk 20:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hm. Then would it be fine to remove them without removing the integrity of the article? I don't believe any claim resides solely on what you're considering a press release. Although the Market Studies I had originally referenced provided the most unbiased and best information, it appears that a pay-to-view study isn't applicable as a source. If I'm wrong on that, please inform me of such. --Dbmays 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great panic at the moment, as I say it limits the usage, not makes them unusable, I only scanned through them so there maybe something useful lurking in them. --pgk 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I just want to be sure I'm contributing properly - I hate that I've caused some issues with one of the admins already because of the article. I'm hoping to get it up to snuff :). The help is greatly appreciated. -- Dbmays 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I wouldn't worry about "issues", admins ultimately don't have any bigger say in what stays and goes than anyone else and shouldn't bare any grudges. That said admins are usually going to have been around a while and have some insight into how wikipedia works (they certainly aren't unique in this, people like badlydrawnjeff also have plenty of experience) and so can give you useful info. We're a mixed group of people with varying perspectives, just take your time. My prime concern is not to keep stuff around if it isn't useful or isn't likely to be useful, it can just add to clutter whilst adding no real value. --pgk 21:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DTI Logo.jpg

Image:DTI Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diversified Technology, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418201502/http://www.diversifiedtechnology.com/ to http://www.diversifiedtechnology.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)