Talk:LiquidPlanner

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Howdy. The article as written is at least as NPOV and notable as other entries in the project management software category. There has been significantly more written about LiquidPlanner the company and its software by reliable 3rd parties than for various other companies and products in its peer group.

Yes, I work for LiquidPlanner. However, I think that if you read the article you will see that it displays a neutral POV, is factual in nature rather than promotional, is verifiable, and does not describe original research.

Thanks for your time and help with this article.

Bphenry (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I agree that it is fairly NPOV, and I think the topic is notable enough to deserve inclusion. I'd like to hear from the nominator. I think the tag proclaiming it 'blatant' advertising is inappropriate. Eleven even (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blatant advertising" is the wording of the WP:CSD#G11 tag, not mine. It was the same wording the first three times this article was speedily deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's your wording now; you put the tag there. =] If this article gets tagged as blatant advertising, I think that really dilutes the tag. It is, as its author says, neutral, factual rather than promotional, and verifiable. Where is the blatant advertising? Eleven even (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an AfD discussion. Let an admin decide if it's a speedy or not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K Eleven even (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has already been deleted, speedily, several times and the original contributor is blocked. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me how to find out who the original contributor was? Bphenry (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the article's previous deletion has been mentioned twice now; one assumes good faith and imagines editors everywhere regarding this current article on its own merits, with "its" history (the history of an article or articles on the same topic, potentially in a very different style and/or with entirely different editors) being an interesting side note. Eleven even (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the deleted prior versions. The original contributor was... ta daa! User:Liquidplanner! (And the entire content of their talk page was, "Adding our product LiquidPlanner information to wikipedia.") --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One version was also tagged as copyvio of http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/liquidplanner_offers_online_pr.php, so there had to be more content than that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wanted to check around here to make sure none of our folks were spamming this and politely inform them that this was unacceptable. The current version of this article should now stand (or fall) on its own merits (as noted by Eleven even). Bphenry (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your arrival, coming so soon after User:Liquidplanner was blocked, was very timely. It's too bad you showed up after that user, whoever they were, had created the impression that someone from your company was using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith on your part, carbuncle, and not sarcasm, what is your point with that comment? Eleven even (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's simply noting the same "amazing coincidence" that has me going from person to person inside my company explaining why if they did this it was quite unacceptable behavior. No worries. Bphenry (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Liquidplanner logo.jpg

Image:Liquidplanner 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on LiquidPlanner. 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:

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) 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]