Talk:WildBlue
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Bias[edit]
There is some minor bias in this article. It needs more NPOV. 138.88.6.132 16:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- As a note, bias has been mostly fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
A LOT of changes[edit]
I've made A LOT of changes. I hope for the best, I'm new at this.
But this article was boring, outdated, and it NEEDED some freshness and updated information with references.
Micwa (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Most of your changes have been undone. While the addition of the infobox was good, the bulk of the content you added was extremely advert-sounding and pulled from their website. That doesn't address the actual needs of the article but appeared to be trying to sell the company. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it was pulled from their press releases for a valid source. I'm not trying to sell anything, I was trying to educate viewers on what WildBlue is. This article has gone unseen for years, it was riddled with typos and inconsistencies before I added anything. What made you all of sudden become aware? So much for "assuming good faith". --Micwa (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did assume good faith. I did not give you a warning, I did not reverse as vandalism, nor did I revert at all. I cleaned up the article and left you a welcome pointing you the appropriate guidelines that I felt you should review. Your primary edits appeared to be to promote WildBlue, and, combined with your edits that seemed to disparage some competitors articles, it raised a valid concern that you may not be acting neutrally. Your edits to the article did not improve the tone (what it was originally tagged for), rather it added a lot of promotional sounding material to the article that was not relevant for Wikipedia and flooded it over a dozen links to WildBlue. Its being "unseen for years" is irrelevant. As for what made me aware of it, it was your question at Resident Evil: Afterlife and your restoring the link to the template. I took a look at your contribs to ensure you hadn't tried to recreated the article, and noticed you were both new and that you mostly made edits to this article to expand it, and to other similar providers to note they needed improvements. So I took a closer look out of concern for the seeming focus on it. I noticed your edits made some improvements (adding the infobox, and the logo), but also added some inappropriate material, so I cleaned it up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just don't see how just about ALL of it could have not have been allowed. No problem, I will not be doing any editing on Wikipedia. There's so may rules and regulations that my brain just can NOT keep up with it all. I did not mean to vandalize or spam anything. I thought I was actually helping the article (I looked at tons of other articles as a guide, mind you). I tagged the other providers for now, until I was done with WildBlue then I was going to try and help them out. So much for that, I would just hate to vandalize anything else on Wikipedia. God forbid I try to help. Also, you did not assume good faith with me, you just admitted that you were first going to give me a warning. I still say that it could have been reverted back to before I made any edits, it's better than the train wreck it's in now. Ah well, maybe someone will be nice and knowledgeable enough to come along within this decade to improve it. Don't know why you couldn't have done something while you're tagging n deleting. I guess you have more things to do, like follow me around to see what else I did wrong. Thank you. Micwa (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- No one said you vandalized anything. I explained why your edits drew attention. I also explained why I removed the content you added. It isn't appropriate for a company article. An article about a company should focus primarily on the company, not give such extensive and unnecessary details about services, pricing, nor should it contain the sort of unsourced OR labeled as "criticism" (which it was not). Unsourced attacks about a company also constititue libel, which is not acceptable. I did assume good faith and said I did not leave you a warning (nor did I say I was going to give you one, I noted I was concerned, looked further, pointed you to details, and so on. The article is not a "train wreck" and is slightly better than it was before. If, however, you insist on seeing everything said as a personal attack and are unable to view this situation neutrally and with good faith, then it probably best that you do not edit here as it may not be the right environment for you. I have tried to point you in the right direction to help you learn how to edit this and other articles, but I guess it just isn't what you are interested in doing. And yes, I do have other things to do. I do thousands of edits a month, and have no real interested in expanding/working on this particular article. Eventually, I may work on expanding it in an appropriate fashion, but for now, I was simply offering advice and (trying) to offer you some guidance so you could do as you appeared interested in it, but I guess that interest is only if you can do whatever you desire rather than from really wanting to do so within the context of what is and is not appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry let me use manners and be civil in discussing what's wrong with the article, if you already haven't given up on me. I should have read ALL of Wikipeida's help content before I started to do such a drastic change. Although that could take months, lol.
- I don't see the purpose in merging it with ViaSat, Inc. ViaSat right now doesn't address what the company is or what it does. HughesNet isn't merged under Hughes Network Systems for example.
- I think the section Technology should be brought back (I didn't write that, I only added the {see also}. Someone viewing the current revision has no idea what kind of technology WB uses, which is [[Ka-band]]. It also uses DOCSIS.
- The Satellites section should come back, MINUS the Gateway/Beams sub-sections.
- Criticism should come back. The FAP, for example is a major concern for people and it should be noted.
- It seems I am the only one interested in this article. Also, I've come to realize that other Wikipeida articles are not reliable as a "guide". That was my ~45th mistake. :)--Micwa (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I know sometimes having your work edited can feel very personal. :-) HughesNet very likely could be merged under Hughes Network Systems. The first question is, what makes WildBlue notable apart from ViaStat and is there enough reliable sourcable information from third-parties to give it a full and proper company article? If not, a merge is a good consideration. ViaStat's article currently doesn't address much of anything, but with a merge, appropriate information about WildBlue would be proper. A good article on the company should have a good history section, and a brief overview of its business model, financials, and a summary of its services. Extensive detail about the technology and satellites is unnecessary, and with most such companies, constantly in flux. The criticism section is highly inappropriate as it was completely unsourced, original research, and constitutes liable. A neutral reception or criticism section can only be added if it is sourced to reliable, third-party sources. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not designed to inform people about whether they should or should not use such a service. For that, they should look at the appropriate review sites and what not. While a different type of company, Hershey Creamery Company is a good article (in terms of content and quality as determined by very specific criteria) on a company that will hopefully illustrate my points here. Notice that in the products section, it only summaries the products, without going into extensive detail on flavors, butter fat content, etc. BAE Systems is a featured company article (featured articles are generally considered to be the "best of the best" among Wikipedia articles). Notice that again, the products/services are only briefly described, while the article focuses primarily on the company's history, organization, and financials. Now this article does have a criticism section, but notice it is very well sourced and written in a neutral fashion. I hope this helps some. NeXT is another featured company article. It has no products section at all, making note of notable product releases within the history section. I hope these examples help :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well on that note(s) the article may very well stay as is and be merged with ViaSat. Because reliable sources is pretty much non-existence, considering satellite internet is not used by a lot of people. I don't think it has reviews, unless it's via forums or user reviews. Which is of course unreliable and original research. Although it is true (based on experience) that those are the actual criticism for satellite internet, I see why Wikipeida must have policies against it. I also notice that working in a team is a must. When I have more time I will learn how to merge and do that. I admit a lot of this is confusing at first, esp with pictures -- which I guess I stole from their website. I didn't think WB would mind. LOL. The article did have pictures of the outside dish and modem which someone took the picture themselves. It was outdated, tis the reason I added the "new" ones. Also, thanks for not banning me for how I acted. --Micwa (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem :-) Merging isn't always a bad thing. There are other companies that have subsidiaries that are not as notable, so they were merged to the parent article which made the parent article better for it and better put the subsidiaries in context. See WP:MERGE to learn more about the process, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions, here or on my talk. Happy to help :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well on that note(s) the article may very well stay as is and be merged with ViaSat. Because reliable sources is pretty much non-existence, considering satellite internet is not used by a lot of people. I don't think it has reviews, unless it's via forums or user reviews. Which is of course unreliable and original research. Although it is true (based on experience) that those are the actual criticism for satellite internet, I see why Wikipeida must have policies against it. I also notice that working in a team is a must. When I have more time I will learn how to merge and do that. I admit a lot of this is confusing at first, esp with pictures -- which I guess I stole from their website. I didn't think WB would mind. LOL. The article did have pictures of the outside dish and modem which someone took the picture themselves. It was outdated, tis the reason I added the "new" ones. Also, thanks for not banning me for how I acted. --Micwa (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I know sometimes having your work edited can feel very personal. :-) HughesNet very likely could be merged under Hughes Network Systems. The first question is, what makes WildBlue notable apart from ViaStat and is there enough reliable sourcable information from third-parties to give it a full and proper company article? If not, a merge is a good consideration. ViaStat's article currently doesn't address much of anything, but with a merge, appropriate information about WildBlue would be proper. A good article on the company should have a good history section, and a brief overview of its business model, financials, and a summary of its services. Extensive detail about the technology and satellites is unnecessary, and with most such companies, constantly in flux. The criticism section is highly inappropriate as it was completely unsourced, original research, and constitutes liable. A neutral reception or criticism section can only be added if it is sourced to reliable, third-party sources. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not designed to inform people about whether they should or should not use such a service. For that, they should look at the appropriate review sites and what not. While a different type of company, Hershey Creamery Company is a good article (in terms of content and quality as determined by very specific criteria) on a company that will hopefully illustrate my points here. Notice that in the products section, it only summaries the products, without going into extensive detail on flavors, butter fat content, etc. BAE Systems is a featured company article (featured articles are generally considered to be the "best of the best" among Wikipedia articles). Notice that again, the products/services are only briefly described, while the article focuses primarily on the company's history, organization, and financials. Now this article does have a criticism section, but notice it is very well sourced and written in a neutral fashion. I hope this helps some. NeXT is another featured company article. It has no products section at all, making note of notable product releases within the history section. I hope these examples help :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry let me use manners and be civil in discussing what's wrong with the article, if you already haven't given up on me. I should have read ALL of Wikipeida's help content before I started to do such a drastic change. Although that could take months, lol.
- No one said you vandalized anything. I explained why your edits drew attention. I also explained why I removed the content you added. It isn't appropriate for a company article. An article about a company should focus primarily on the company, not give such extensive and unnecessary details about services, pricing, nor should it contain the sort of unsourced OR labeled as "criticism" (which it was not). Unsourced attacks about a company also constititue libel, which is not acceptable. I did assume good faith and said I did not leave you a warning (nor did I say I was going to give you one, I noted I was concerned, looked further, pointed you to details, and so on. The article is not a "train wreck" and is slightly better than it was before. If, however, you insist on seeing everything said as a personal attack and are unable to view this situation neutrally and with good faith, then it probably best that you do not edit here as it may not be the right environment for you. I have tried to point you in the right direction to help you learn how to edit this and other articles, but I guess it just isn't what you are interested in doing. And yes, I do have other things to do. I do thousands of edits a month, and have no real interested in expanding/working on this particular article. Eventually, I may work on expanding it in an appropriate fashion, but for now, I was simply offering advice and (trying) to offer you some guidance so you could do as you appeared interested in it, but I guess that interest is only if you can do whatever you desire rather than from really wanting to do so within the context of what is and is not appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I just don't see how just about ALL of it could have not have been allowed. No problem, I will not be doing any editing on Wikipedia. There's so may rules and regulations that my brain just can NOT keep up with it all. I did not mean to vandalize or spam anything. I thought I was actually helping the article (I looked at tons of other articles as a guide, mind you). I tagged the other providers for now, until I was done with WildBlue then I was going to try and help them out. So much for that, I would just hate to vandalize anything else on Wikipedia. God forbid I try to help. Also, you did not assume good faith with me, you just admitted that you were first going to give me a warning. I still say that it could have been reverted back to before I made any edits, it's better than the train wreck it's in now. Ah well, maybe someone will be nice and knowledgeable enough to come along within this decade to improve it. Don't know why you couldn't have done something while you're tagging n deleting. I guess you have more things to do, like follow me around to see what else I did wrong. Thank you. Micwa (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did assume good faith. I did not give you a warning, I did not reverse as vandalism, nor did I revert at all. I cleaned up the article and left you a welcome pointing you the appropriate guidelines that I felt you should review. Your primary edits appeared to be to promote WildBlue, and, combined with your edits that seemed to disparage some competitors articles, it raised a valid concern that you may not be acting neutrally. Your edits to the article did not improve the tone (what it was originally tagged for), rather it added a lot of promotional sounding material to the article that was not relevant for Wikipedia and flooded it over a dozen links to WildBlue. Its being "unseen for years" is irrelevant. As for what made me aware of it, it was your question at Resident Evil: Afterlife and your restoring the link to the template. I took a look at your contribs to ensure you hadn't tried to recreated the article, and noticed you were both new and that you mostly made edits to this article to expand it, and to other similar providers to note they needed improvements. So I took a closer look out of concern for the seeming focus on it. I noticed your edits made some improvements (adding the infobox, and the logo), but also added some inappropriate material, so I cleaned it up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Of course it was pulled from their press releases for a valid source. I'm not trying to sell anything, I was trying to educate viewers on what WildBlue is. This article has gone unseen for years, it was riddled with typos and inconsistencies before I added anything. What made you all of sudden become aware? So much for "assuming good faith". --Micwa (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)