User talk:Alistairdavidson

Welcome!

Summary of recent changes to Infinera and competitors in its market in January 2014.

1. Infinera and Ciena added to lists of telecommunications suppliers and hardware equipment vendors where they were missing. Infinera also added to Nasdaq category as it was missing there, even thought the box summary did mention Infinera.

2. Infinera vague marketshare claim of being number one in North America for DWDM removed because of no identified source.

3. Infinera products were not well described. As they are complicated, I used a quote from the SEC 10K filings on the grounds that (a) it is not a marketing document and therefore light on marketing oriented style and claims, and (b) all claims have to be reviewed by lawyers to avoid legal suits. The text therefore, is a good summary of a complicated technology.

4. Evaluating a company is helped by knowing who their competition is and who has bought their product. I have added a section on direct and indirect competitors using a narrow and broad definition of the optical transport space. Links are provided to all listed customers.

5. The technology is addressed in more detail laying out the technology characteristics, but at a non-technical level at the beginning of the document where a verifiable speed of provisioning claim is rather fun being a new Guinness record. I have also added a new technology section which attempts to quantify patent activity using two patent sources.

6. References have been added to the management team source.

7. People often seek additional information about technologies, companies, competitors and industry trends from analysts. A listing of analysts has been added that cover Infinera. I plan on adding more as a I run across them. References are provided for the analysts where I have been able to drill down deeper than their names and companies, but this requires further work.

Alistairdavidson (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed MeanAsCustard's deletion of the customer list, analysts and product descriptions. My justification is as follows:

1. Infinera is a leading edge technology vendor. Writing about the technology with no description of adoption is a little bit like a virgin writing about sex. Great in theory, but not useful.

2. The products offering of this company is somewhat complicated. If I abstract information about their product, I am open to criticism of being too positive or too negative. Using the description in the SEC 10K is, I would argue, authoritative. The description would have t go through legal due diligence. By clearly indicating that it is a quote from the company, a reader can quickly identify where weasel words have been used thanks to legal review. If I or someone else edits the description, then it is less clear. Yes, the company states its beliefs about the aspects of its business where it has advantages. But if that is of importance to investors, then I would suggest it is important to Wikipedia readers. Information about a company, should I believe, provide some neutral information about its competitive position. I am currently looking for quotable data that I can incorporate, but have not yet identified anything I can use without infringing.

3. The telecom world is very inertial. Some standards win. Some standards lag and some lose. Wimax has not been successful in the US for example. Adoption information is important in rapidly changing technologies. Given that readers don't have access, as a general rule to paid research, providing customer lists is an inexpensive way of understanding adoption. However, if the purpose of a Wikipedia listing is to be useful then metainformation about a company, e.g. who you can go to find out more is both useful and time saving. And where information is changing but free, it gives a place to look that might not be picked by Google ranking algorithms which are not specific enough to pick up an influential but not widely referenced analyst.

Strategic Planning Software

I have done a significant revision of this page which has pretty much been ignored. It has been updated to provide historical context, discuss what works, distinguish between different types and components of strategic planning software, and introduce newer ideas such as agile and scrum.

There is much more that can be said about this topic and I plan on developing a list of currently available software and more references. However, this is a start.

Alistairdavidson (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Strategy and leadership magazine, from its old location at User:Alistairdavidson/Strategy and leadership magazine. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Strategy and leadership magazine (November 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KGirlTrucker81 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Strategy and leadership magazine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Alistairdavidson, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced lists of examples and vendors

Hello Alistairdavidson, thank you for your contributions to improve programming-related articles. However, extensive unsourced lists of examples and vendors should usually be avoided (of course notable vendors can be mentioned, if an independent reliable source covers them in detail in some relevant context). I have trimmed some of your recent edits, but have tried to preserve most of the added non-listy information. If you have any questions, please feel free to ping me. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Agilsoft (November 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Agilsoft and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Agilsoft (November 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Reads more like a press release, than a formal, neutral article. Being concise is key. Wikipedia is a place to inform a reader, not to brag.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Agilsoft and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Agilsoft (November 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chrissymad was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Agilsoft and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Agiloft (November 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Agiloft and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Strategy and leadership magazine concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Strategy and leadership magazine, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Strategy and leadership magazine

Hello, Alistairdavidson. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Strategy and leadership magazine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alistairdavidson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Alistairdavidson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]