User talk:UninvitedCompany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 your signature... 2 Why did you delete my page 3 CPA Site Solutions 4 Help! 5 More Specific Info on Why Page was 'Speedy Deleted' 6 NCover Deletion 7 IndieShows 8 Talkback (algae) 9 Hercules Networks 10 Allen Bohbot 11 AFAN FM 12 The Jerusalem Kollel 13 Złota Baba 14 Foreign-language sources 15 CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia official policy

Old talk archived 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

[edit] your signature...

Steven, I say this with complete respect for your creativity and your good intentions. I'm asking that you consider changing your signature. Users who are not familiar with you may misunderstand the Inc. as a corporate or group account. Just something to think about. And I respect your decision either way in the matter. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How long has UC used that sig, and how many problems has it caused? Majorly talk 01:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly's point. As well, Steve has an user page that clearly explains who he is. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was UninvitedCompany for a while, but I changed it to its present form when it became customary to link both one's user page and talk page from the sig, in some fashion. Since there is in actual fact, so far as I know, no corporation so named (though there are a few bands and theater troupes that use it, none of them either notable or related to me in any way), I didn't think there was much potential for confusion. The "Co., Inc." was chosen in part to make the self-parody crystal clear as this duplicative form has never been used by any actual companies and was frequently used in 1930s-1950s American humor ^{[citation needed]}. As Majorly implies, no one has complained before. I'm not sure I see it as more problematic than someone believing Majorly is a military figure of some sort, or someone believing that Kingturtle holds regal authority among certain reptiles, but hey, if there's really a problem, I'll change it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I respect your decision either way. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete my page

i am the webmaster of the page http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com and was using the materials on that site to build this wiki page as per the suggestion i wrote on the talk page and will send a e-mail tomorrow from the site to permissions-en@wikimedia.org permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL,

As Such please reinstate the page.

Thank you for your time and effort ensuring that wikipedia remains a true source of information.

Please note that you must have the original author(s) email permissions-en and state that they irrevocably release the page under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Once this is done, the permissions team will restore the page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you what do you mean by original author

Whoever originally wrote the words down. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK i have done as you instructed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.27.96 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

can you reinstate the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.206.53 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CPA Site Solutions

Hi. I need some help setting up a company page on wikipedia. You deleted my first attempt and I would like your guidance in getting them an acceptable listing.

I'm a marketing consultant from Louisiana. My practice is very specialized. I work only with cpa and accounting firms.

As part of my program I require all my clients to get a website, and yes... CPA Site Solutions is the firm I recommend. Three times in the last two months I have had trouble with clients trying to look them up in Wikipedia. They have no listing, so of course when a search is done for "CPA Site Solutions" what comes up in the #2 position instead is Emochila, one of their competitors. Accountants are really not much more sophisticated consumers than anyone else. More and more my clients are confusing Emochila with my recommendation. This is a big problem, as their sites are very limited and cannot be properly optimized or marketed.

I do not begrudge Emochila their listing. They are a major player in the industry, but this confusion must stop. Once they buy an Emochila site my clients have not only paid out about $200 in setup fees, they are locked into the service for a year, and I simply cannot optimize the sites properly. Their templates are not flexible enough to allow me to change the Meta Tags on the individual pages.

This situation is generating significant monetary losses for my clients.

CPA Site Solutions is also a more important company in that industry. They have more than twice as many clients (3000 at last count) and they are older (by about 5 years). In fact CPA Site Solutions is the second largest Website Provider in the world for US Accounting firms today (The largest and oldest is called Accountant's World). They also own Complete Site Interactive, another website design firm for accountants. CSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of CPA Site Solutions since 2007.

While I realize I cannot say this in the article, the real problem I'm having is that CPA Site Solutions offers a much better product. They are the real leaders in the industry. Emochila's entire business model is a weak copy of CPA Site Solutions, and they just can't keep up. CPA site Solutions is much less expensive, has better tech support, and also has a better Content Management System. While CPA Site Solutions is dedicated to programming and development and has a philosophy of superior sales through a superior product, Emochila really doesn't innovate. They wait for other companies to do it then they crank out the cheapest possible copy.

On a practical level, CPA Site Solutions can integrate custom site styles into their CMS with a minimum of difficulty (and expense) and more importantly their pages can be individually optimized with unique Meta Tags for SEO. Lastltly they are designing content with a very real understanding of Marketing and Networking. I suppose if you like I can get into the intricacies of network marketing with you but I guess at some point I just need to ask you to accept that as a marketing professional I know what I'm talking about.

Anyway... I used the Emochila page as a guide, and was very careful to maintain a neutral perspective. I will be reposting the article soon. Please contact me via my talk page to let me know specifically what you found objectionable about my article so I can make sure the next version is up to Wikipedia's editorial standards.

UrKnightErrant (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've undeleted your article and listed them both for a more complete discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emochila (2nd nomination). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I need some clarification. There were numerous links, independent sources, that make reference to the company I am trying to list, but I did not include them because they did not contain any factual information worthy of a footnote and I was afraid including them would change the articles Neutral Perspective. This seems to be hurting my article's case in the AfD debate. Should I be including these links in the "Links" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrKnightErrant (talk • contribs) 17:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. My view personally is that at this point neither article should be kept (but this is Wikipedia and other people involved may see things differently). If you have reliable, independent sources that have something non-trivial to say about your company, they do belong in the article, and the article should be updated to include whatever it is that they have to say. If the references don't really say anything about CPA Site Solutions, but instead just mention the company in passing, then I myself am not going to pay them much heed. Others may consider them if you list them in a "links," "further reading," etc., section rather than using them as footnotes. I would caution you that if the topic isn't notable, no amount of work is going to save the article -- some people get mad at me when they feel they've put forth considerable effort at my behest only to see the article deleted anyway. The rest of this page contains examples of that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done what you recommended. I was careful not to go overboard and did not include every passing reference to their company, but I included several highly relevant links from well respected outside sources that I originally chose to omit because I was afraid it would hurt the neutral perspective of the listing. Please review the content an let me know what you think?UrKnightErrant (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

This is Doug Texter. My entire page was just speedily deleted.

Can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.193.210 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Do you think that's bad? Why?
2. The reason the article was deleted was that much of the content had been removed leading to an article that said little and therefore did not establish notability.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More Specific Info on Why Page was 'Speedy Deleted'

Hello, I am new to writing on wikipedia. My 1st article was G8 Business. I thought I referenced everything and where I used statements by others they were footnoted and the site referenced. The site was deleted with notation G12 for copyright violations. Can you be more specific? I certainly had no intention of doing this. Thank you. I believe the page should be reinstated to give me a chance to correct what you think was a copyright violation. KEA65 (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of the material was copied verbatim from bdi-online.de, and the article was therefore deleted as a copyright infringement. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can the article be reinstated so that I can fix it? I can move it to a draft page/sandbox/underconstruction perhaps. I didn't realize it was copyright infringement if the source was given credit. But I can rework the article and put it in my own words only using the joint statement (found in many sources) as a smaller reference point. I just hate to lose it all without a chance to fix it. KEA65 (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can email a copy of it to you if you want. You would have to set up an email address in your preferences first, then leave a note here and I'll send it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NCover Deletion

Hi, you deleted the NCover page twice on the basis that it is advertising. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that assertion and give suggestions on to how I can make a wikipedia page describing a type of software that thousands of .NET developers use. Thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aislingdonnelly (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course. First of all, the subject must be notable, and this must be made clear in the article, ideally in the first paragraph. Second, reliable, independent sources must be used as references to support the claim that the software is notable. Third, the article must be neutral in tone. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Im working on a site that should prove NCover's status as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aislingdonnelly (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IndieShows

You deleted my article called "IndieShows". Just wondering what was wrong and what could be done to improve it? I've showed importance and used references and read the WEB guide. Any help would be appreciated. Whats funny is in the deletion review area some admins say my article shouldn't keep getting deleted and some say it should. No one seems to agree on standards. Lennonno9 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not your article but the subject matter itself. Generally we do not cover web sites unless they have received nontrivial critical coverage (full policy) in independent media that has editorial oversight (that is, reliable sources). Further, this coverage must address the impact of the web site in the wider world rather than just provide a summary of the content. Of the references you specify, the press release is not independent, and the other two lack editorial oversight. None of the three addresses anything other than the content of your web site -- there's nothing about its influence, nothing comparing it to other similar web sites, nothing commenting on the quality or depth of the material the site offers.

Regarding your last comment, Wikipedian admins frequently disagree. In this regard they are no different from attorneys or luthiers. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, not to be elementary about it, but the way wikipedia works then is not fair. The website "SoundClick" has an article on wikipedia and the article is just about what the site does. It's references come from a blog, itself, and something else. I also have a friend who has an internet radio station (I won't name it because I don't want his article to get deleted because of me), but his article has been up for months and it is simply about an internet radio station (his internet radio station) and he has no critical coverage. In fact, one of his very few references is from IndieShows, the site I'm trying to write the article about. In short, I'm done trying to make this article on IndieShows, but, you guys aren't really fair because there are TONS of sites with wikipedia articles which are nothing more than advertisments. Lennonno9 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it's frustrating, and I don't like it either. If you want to help make it better, you can list SoundClick for deletion yourself. You don't have to be an admin, and there's no club you have to join. Just follow three easy steps and you can make the project more consistent. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to delete anyone's article. Might come back to haunt me ;). I thought about it, and even added the delete tag to the above mentioned article, but then I chickened out and removed it. You should check out that article though and let me know if it is compliant and if it is, why is it compliant... maybe that would help me in creating my article. Lennonno9 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it. The difference is that they have received coverage from the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, even if only in passing. Either would be fairly significant by itself, but coverage in both would be a solid indication of notability. Again, these decisions are more about the subject than about the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess the bottom line is I need to wait until a "notible" site references IndieShows, then I can make this article. I think I'll start e-mailing these sites and ask them to mention IndieShows ;) Lennonno9 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback (algae)

~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hercules Networks

Hi, thanks for your reply. Do such sources need to be provided in the article, or on the afd discussion page? Simon311A (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's best to provide them in the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Bohbot

"no evidence that the user is banned"? User:Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji - banned as a sockpuppet of HanzoHattori.[1] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the user may have been blocked as a sockpuppet. Unless HanzoHattori is the object of a community ban in addition to a block, it wouldn't make sense to mass-delete or mass-revert Hanzo's edits. Now, the article may be deletion-worthy for other reasons, in which case it should go, but I wouldn't think the fact that it was created by a sock would in and of itself be grounds for deletion. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AFAN FM

Pathetic - it's a new radio station and I have sources to prove it. Jonny7003 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Then put them in the article and update the article to say what they say. Be aware that we expect to see coverage in reliable sources beyond mere substantiation of the station's existence. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Jerusalem Kollel

It's usual in this sort of instance to replace the page with a regular copyvio notice and give the uploader seven days to send in permission, simply because we don't want to be responsible for propagating copyvio text. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Złota Baba

Hello!!!

I have cited a source within this article which you tagged as hoax. Please look into this, if you agree then please remove it from Suspected Hoax list. If you still believe it to be hoax then please take it to AfD or PROD.

Thank you.

Hitro 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign-language sources

Hello UninvitedCompany. Regretfully, I have to express my disappointment with your comment here, which seems to imply that in general, articles lacking English-language sources are not worthy of inclusion. My impression has always been that the creation of articles on topics of note from all over the world (not just the English-speaking parts) are not only welcomed, but encouraged.

While my own article work is so modest that it doesn't really matter one way or the other, there are many, many editors who, based on foreign-language sources, have contributed immensely to the sum of all human knowledge. If I were one of them, I believe I would find it hard to not feel a little bit slighted by that comment, especially coming from someone like yourself. I hope you understand. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say and found myself wondering about this for a while after leaving the comment you mentioned. I am of two minds. The problem we have is that there are not enough ENWP editors fluent in any but the most common foreign languages to police such articles. In areas prone to abuse, especially BLPs, corporations, and products, this could become problematic and indeed already is to a degree. On the other hand, from a standpoint of goals and mission rather than pragmatism, I agree that lack of English sources shouldn't have to be a barrier. One possible guide is how the Wikipedia in the language used by the bulk of the available sources treats the material. Another is the willingness of the page author(s) to supply translations of the sources upon which the article relies. At one extreme, it would be nearly impossible to fact check an article based solely on sources in Guaraní as there are at most several hundred people worldwide who could translate between Guaraní and English reliably, none of them Wikipedians.

It's late but I'll try to write more on this another day. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedia official policy

I have nominated Category:Wikipedia official policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for merging into Category:Wikipedia policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Aervanath (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)