User talk:Gr1st/Archive 9

Getronics logo

You uploaded the Getronics logo. This logo has been changed. I contacted the copyright holders of the new logo. Patio (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated. Gr1st (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Heidelberger Drucksmachinen

Hello Gr1st,

I work for the Product Management Department for Heidelberg and am the user SepBan. I know you took down some of my edits yesterday and I now have put an official statement for Heidelberger Druck on our Wikipedia page. I would like to continue to edit it to add more information and would like to make sure there are no issues. Please let me know if you have any advice.

Regards, joseph.banich@heidelberg.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by SepBan (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a few issues here.

1) Firstly, you work for the company and therefore have a conflict of interest when it comes to the Heidelberg Druck article. This section of Wikipedia's COI guideline states that users should "avoid, or exercise great caution when editing, articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with". In practice this means restricting oneself to pointing out factual errors on the talk page (or fixing them yourself if they are non-controversial) and other relatively minor edits.

2) Both of the texts which you have posted so far are taken word-for-word from the Heidelberg website. As it stands, this is a copyright violation because the contents of the website do not appear to have been released under a free license compatible with Wikipedia (i.e. CC-BY-SA 3.0 and/or the GDFL). An authorised person at your company could release the text under such a license and communicate this to Wikipedia, however the company would have to be aware of everything which the license entails (namely that the text may be freely redistributed, reused and built upon by anyone).

3) Even if the above condition was satisfied, the text would still not be appropriate for Wikipedia as it stood - it is not written in an encyclopaedic tone and does not adopt a neutral point of view, a fundamental Wikipedia principle. In short, they read like press releases, not parts of an encyclopaedia article. Here are a few examples of phrases from your previous edits which failed these criteria: "world's leading solution provider for the print media industry", "high-quality print products", "cutting-edge logistics", "even better supply of spare parts than before", "it caught on like wild fire", and so on.

I hope that the above is at least of some help in explaining why your previous edits were not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you are still keen to add material to the page, I can only suggest that you ensure the text is original (i.e. not copied from the Heidelberg website), is given a critical eye to ensure it meets the neutral point of view criterion, and has any statements likely to be challenged supported by reliable, third party sources independent of Heidelberg. Feel free to post here, on the article talk page or at Wikipedia:Help desk if you have any more queries. Best, Gr1st (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

BMW article

I noted that you commented in the past on the criticism section of the BMW article, and wondered if you wanted to take another look at it. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the competitor link for the Autonomy Entry?

Dear Gr1st

Why did you delete the competitors link for the Autonomy Entry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy_Corporation

InfoCodex is a competitor to Autonomy and I think that is valuable information.

Thank you for your Feedback.

Best Zeno

Because Wikipedia is not a directory of links. I'm sure that there are many companies who operate in the same industry - why is this one particularly deserving of a link to its website? Gr1st (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then why not enhance Wikipedia with all those links? Wouldn't that be useful for the user? Here I am getting blocked for no apparent reason. There are not sooo many competitors to Autonomy out there but Wikipedia should definitely encourage links of competitors. This is not a website that sells Viagra pills. InfoCodex Software is patented in US and EU. This is a real software company. So first and foremost it is _a_competitor. How much do you understand of Enterprise search software and cross language search? How shall I prove to you that I am knowledgeable in that field?

Also: Why do I have to prove my innocence? Who tells me that you are not payed for writing in Wikipedia about Autonomy Corporation and that you get payed for that (who knows, you may also get payed to delete all the competitors links)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdavatz (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, a few points:

1. Whether or not you or I are knowledgeable in the field is irrelevant.

2. Whether InfoCodex software is patented is irrelevant.

3. You do not have to "prove your innocence" to anyone.

This is a encyclopaedia, not a web directory. We don't just throw in tangentially-related external links for the hell of it. WP:ELNO states that except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services and links mainly intended to promote a website should be avoided. If InfoCodex is notable by Wikipedia standards (i.e. is the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject), then you can write an article about it. If not, then I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the place for this. Gr1st (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. So the person who wrote the article about Autonomy Corporation could not know anything about meaning based computing but still write the article about the Autonomy Corporation? That would not make so much sense to me. But thanks for your hint. zdavatz 07:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Umbro.svg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Umbro.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 01:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

IPs in India doing weird edits

I see you reverted edits on SAP AG by 122.161.165.63. This is one of the many, many IPs used by sockmaster User:Rock5410. He's the one who has gone through pages for a few dozen businesses and schools to edit the infoboxes trying to make them all identical: changing Indian and European companies to report earnings in $ rather than € or ₨, adding a third decimal point to earnings, adding flag icons, making URLs appear as Rbc.com instead of www.rbc.com, etc. All of his usernames have been blocked now, but he changes IP addresses about twice a day so the only way to totally stop him is multiple rangeblocks. Most of his edits are just weird rather than blatantly vandalism or obviously disruptive, so I'm not sure whether an admin would see rangeblocks as a good solution. We had some in July when he was much less subtle than he is now. Usually, he only makes it a few weeks at a time without a username before he has the compulsion to start moving and redirecting pages and signs up for a new account. It's been two weeks since his last block, so I expect he'll have a new name soon. Can you please watch for a username doing these kinds of edits and let me know? I don't have all these businesses on my watchlist, so you might see him first. If he becomes more disruptive as an IP editor, perhaps another trip to WP:ANI would be good too. Thanks! WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Will certainly let you know if I see anything. Today he added the Dow Industrials components template to the SAP AG page and added SAP to that template, which is utter nonsense. It may of course have been an error rather than intentional vandalism, but the addition of such blatantly false info is far more concerning. Gr1st (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to tell his thought process, but it seems that part of the goal is to make all the businesses look the same. He saw something with the DJIA on one article, didn't see it on the SAP AG page, and thought he would "fix" it to make it all the same. His English is quite weak, so he doesn't understand the words he's saying or editing half the time. The trend in his edits lately is to try to make things uniform across multiple articles, even if they really aren't (as was obviously the case with the SAP AG edits). He's been doing similar things with education-related articles. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Business Objects.svg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Business Objects.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CITV.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CITV.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries when reverting

Hi Gr1st, just a note that it would be really helpful if when you revert more than just the last edit to an article, you would note which version you are reverting to. This is in reference to Indra Sistemas but is a general note. When I revert more than just the last edit, I try to always use an edit summary like "rv 4 edits", "rv to 01Jan09 version", "rv to GoodEditor version", "rv to last good version of 15:24 03Sep" - or suchlike. This gives a clue to the next reviewing editor as to where to start checking for the crap the last one missed. Obviously your method also works since you caught way more promo-spam there than I did, this is just a suggestion for how we could work better together. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Gr1st (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)