User talk:Chengera

Welcome!

Hello Chengera and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest
• FAQ for Organizations

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Technopat (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much Technopat. Sorry I'm new so I'm probably doing this wrong so any guidance is appreciated. Chengera (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings again. Thanks for your note. I'm afraid I can't explain why only those two companies qualify for customizable effects. As far as I'm concerned there is too much promotional content on the page as it is. However, in reply to your other question, I suggest you raise the issue on the article's talk page to engage other editors who ar interested in the subject and try to reach consensus on how to include your content in a compliant manner. Please be aware however, of possible Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems you'd first have to deal with is whether the renaming/rebranding you mention is of encyclopedic interest. In other words, if the company itself isn't considered relevant enough to have its own encyclopedic article, it would be difficult to justify including that development. Developments of interest, or even of great relevance to a specific sector are not necessarily encyclopedic. Again, I'd raise the issue on the article's talk page where other editors who know more about that particular sector than I do can give more qualified opinions. There's no hurry - if the subject is encyclopedic, it's here to stay, even if the state-of-the-art technology itself moves on. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)