Additions of http://.intellitech.com
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Hu. What is the objection, the link? That can be removed, rather than the entire page. Most EDA companies are listed in Wiki. For instance, a search for 'Azuro' yields a quite similar page to the Intellitech page developed.
Similarly the link to intellitech was added to the list of eda companies on wiki. Other companies have descriptions included similar to the one I added and a link to the company.
AfD nomination of Intellitech
An editor has nominated Intellitech, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellitech and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest?
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You need a source, particularly as your claim is contradicted by Bob Denver who says Sherwood Schwartz told him the character's full name was Willie Gilligan. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Jtagchair (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Well this is completely false and unsubstantiated. Wiki has it right and it contradicts your views. Only the original promotional material included Willy Gilligan but Schwartz says Gilligan is a first name. What you ignore, which makes no sense to me, is that Schwartz, who was producer and therefore has READ THE SCRIPT, approved the sentences as they stand. "Dr. Whitehead says, "And MY SON GILLIGAN was on that boat". So I am completely using a source, the movie with a SCRIPT APPROVED BY SCHWARTZ indicates that Dr. Whitehead's SON is GILLIGAN. That was the comic punchline. And SCHWARTZ a jokester has cleverly given us the final CLUE during a TIME where he was well aware of the question of is GILLIGAN a LAST name or FIRST name. So the statement is SO grounded in source and logic, it is inconceivable that you would delete it and assert that the name is Willie Gilligan. I'm not sure you quite understand how to allow a community to develop Wiki pages with sources. It's not about you in control and in charge of removing others contribution when you clearly don't have specific facts or reasons to other than your own opinion. Suggest you take a break from Wiki until you know how to develop a global encyclopedia based on cooperation and intellectual discourse.