Aliweb, that you have an agenda with respect to the Aliweb article is obvious. That you are personally and/or professionally connected to the site is also obvious. Therefore your continual edits to change what others have done are clearly an attempt to exert editorial control and ownership over the article. No matter what your connection to Aliweb is, the Wikipedia article on the subject is not yours to control.
Now, prior to you reverting my last edits, I started a discussion on the "was/is" issue. Please do the rest of us the courtesy of participating in the discussion rather than ignoring it.
Additionally, I don't think the inclusion of the 9/11 link even needs discussing. Your 9/11 page is just one of millions on the Web, and it has nothing to do with the article itself, which is about a search engine, not 9/11. I don't see the point in including it or a description of the page in the article. If you disagree, I'd be interested in knowing why.
I think the reverse is true about agendas. There is a lot of people commentting and arguing that Aliweb is not the web's first search engine or is "one of" the web's first search engines. Why all the fuss about that one point? With all the other information available to contribute to the article, why the focus on this one line of text? Then when I edit it to make the word "is" correct in the context you argued for, you change it back.
As for editorial control, I don't excercise editorial control over anything concerning the article except for facts. We all agree the sun is hot, the earth revolves around the sun, etc. Aliweb is the web's first search engine. Its not the second, its not the fifth, its not one of, it was and is the first. Period. That is a fact. A very well known fact by most people that have done any research on the subject. If it was not the first - then instead of saying it isn't, figure out which one is (or if they dont' exist any more "was").
I could care less what is written about Aliweb, positive or negative. Its not going to affect the "business" aspect of it anyway. But I do care if it is factual and since there is so much attention to this aspect of the article, in fact, all the attention to this aspect of the article, and almost none to anything else important, it makes me wonder what the hidden agenda is and who all these people are that just pop out of nowhere to edit this small miniscule aspect of the article. There have been other edits - lots of them - so why all of a sudden this attention with NO research done on the part of the people that are doing the editing?
The link to 9/11 is no big deal. Of course, it is not like millions on the web. In fact, I would challenge you to find a page such as that which has as many links and the quality of the links as that page has (and yes some are outdated now). So millions on the web? Please let me know of just one other that is that informative and in depth. Any other search engine's doing in depth linking on a particular subject other than say about.com/mining company . . . so is it relative . . . is it factual . . .
Hmmm . . . no discussion of IAFA, no factual additions to the page, no references, just minor edits of is/was one of many etc blah blah. No agenda. Okay, whatever.aliweb 03:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI conflict of interest guideline
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia in Aliweb or other articles, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines.
Note that the Wikipedia article is about the historical search engine. If your company is sufficiently notable for mention as per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), that must be supported by citations of independent sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 14:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliweb. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)