The Cougar Mountain Software article was clearly biased and based on marketing material. There is no need to add NPOV 24SevenOffice article just because I added a NPOV for the Cougar Mountain Software. Please base your editing on facts and objectivity. --Sleepyhead 11:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not an advertising medium. Thus articles should include facts and relevant information about subjects. There is nothing wrong about including the Cougar Mountain Software article in Wikipedia - but there is something wrong when the content seems written by someone in the marketing department or copied from a sales brochure. Wikipedia is based on facts and objectivity. The article was very subjects in the product description. There still is (still after some editing by me) extensive use of subjective words such as 'best', 'powerful' etc. Just edit the article so the information is provided with a neutral point of view.
If you feel there is something in the 24SevenOffice article is subjective please make corrective changes. But adding NPOV just because I added NPOV to the Cougar Mountain article is not appropriate.
Please make sure you sign your comments. by using --~~~~
--Sleepyhead 21:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I see you had an encounter with Sleepyhead81 as well. He can be a bit bold, and do play rough. No asking nicely or trying to solve problems without deleting first in that world.
As you might understand I have been in the same situation as you, and I do accept that my initial article was not 100% neutral. BUT, what is for me annoying is that a vote was made before I noticed was was going on, so I corrected the problems and no more votes were given.
But still, weeks after, the page was still deleted. I guess the admin didn't even read the content, just counted the votes that was given before corrections.
So, do you mind sharing how you managed to undelete the page, and if you have any tips?
--Zyron 10:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)