User talk:Rbe2004

November 2007

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, McAfee SiteAdvisor. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. I noticed you did make an improvement to the article, but you also added two thousand bytes of talkpage messages, which is something we do not do. Please keep talk messages on the talk page. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, McAfee SiteAdvisor. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. I can see that you have already been notified that this in unacceptable but have done it again regardless. Please, if you wish to comment on the McAfee SiteAdvisor article, do it on its talk page

nancy 20:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McAfee SiteAdvisor

I don't get it. Why should a criticism of the product not be allowed? Are you just shilling for McAffee? The controversy over this product should be allowed. I am not commenting on the "article". I am commenting on SiteAdvisor and thus the comments have a valid place in the article. I at first inadvertantly posted material from the Talk pages, but removed those at the request of the first editor. It seems completely out of context for Wikipedia editors to remove legitimate commentary from an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Rbe2004 (talk • contribs)

Hi there Rbe2004. I think the issue here may be a misunderstanding about what is acceptable in an article. Wikipedia is not a place for commentary it is a place for encyclopaedic content, this is someties not an easy distinction to make I know, but I guess the easiest way to explain is to look at the policy on personal opinions against the policy on verifiability. I am not in a position to dispute whether your additions are true however the manner in which they were phrased is not suitable for an article and regardless you need to back them up with reliable third party sources. I am more than happy to help you out with this if you should like - first and easiest step would be to find some weblinks to back up your statements (from reliable third party sources of course!) Kind regards, nancy 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (not in any way shape or form linked to McAffee)[reply]

OK. I see you have added the info back in to the article. This is what I have done -

removed the overt 'talk'
created a Criticism section in to which I have moved the information about unfairly reviewing sites and tagged the section as needing a citation.

Please be aware that as what you have added could be considered contraversial, the fact that it is not cited will severely lessen its chances of staying in the article. My very strong recommendation is to source it properly and quickly. With kind regards, nancy 20:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McAfee again

User:Shell_Kinney has essentially said everything I could have said over at that talk page. I am sorry to hear of your personal problems with the site, but information used in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable, meaning, taken from a reliable source. Your first step should be locating such sources - likely magazine or news articles- containing criticism of the site. There's really nothing else that can be done until you have those.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]