Talk:Basex

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Neutrality

The entry just created for Basex is something I carefully researched and also followed all wikipedia guidelines for. I first examined the entries for other companies in the same field as Basex to better understand how these companies should be written about in the wikipedia.

I do not understand why it would be tagged for deletion within minutes of my having created it, esp. since it is neutral and Basex is a notable entity in IT research, esp. about information overload. Mworth (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral" is where the article fails. If you are willing to make it seem less like an ad it may avoid the chopping block. Think of an encyclopedia entry on your writing style. For further information, see this.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concept of neutral (trying, at any rate). Please point me to an article on a competitor to Basex that meets the neutral standard as I tried to model what I wrote against other such articles. Mworth (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To lpatrol, I read through the relevant sections of the materials you pointed me to and edited the article accordingly. Please let me know if you think its neutrality has been improved upon. Mworth (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see some progress. Try removing the buzzwords and replace them with simpiler terms. That makes the article a lot more comprehensible and much less like an advertisement. As to the prose, Novell might be an article to emulate here.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super. I will look at the Novell page. Thank you for your help! Mworth (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To lpatrol, I researched and added a history section and a small criticism section. Would appreciate feedback here. Mworth (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, next try to fix the reasearch section. Cut and clean it down to a dry statement of what the research is and what the company claims can be gleaned from it. Use "the company says" often.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I partially fixed the research section. The edit should give you an idea of what we want.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To lpatrol, thanks. I am beginning to get the hang of this with your help. I will work more on the research section next. --Mworth (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To lpatrol, just realizing someone with an IP address as user name undid your edit to the research section. Please advise. --14:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mworth (talk • contribs)

Further comment to lpatrol. I have studied the edits you made to research via the "undo" feature (but I didn't undo the other user's undo). While I get the gist of what you were aiming for, you inadvertently introduced some errors into the section. The attempt to condense and paraphrase the quote in that section dramatically changes the meaning of the quote as well. However, I think I still get what you were going for so I will continue to work on it in that vein. Would still appreciate your thoughts nonetheless. Thanks. -- Mworth (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I condensed the research section so it is less like a brag board. To be truthful it may not belong here at all. It doesn't really seem to add much that couldn't be in other sections.--Ipatrol (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading Basex's research studies as part of my research on this. Since what they create is research, it makes sense (to me) to have a separate section. I understand the point about not making it a "brag board." However, your paraphrasing of the quote completely loses the meaning about collaboration and knowledge sharing - in other words, it overly genericizes the quote to the point where it's watered down. I had included the quote there originally since it was a well regarded third party explaining the company's research. But we can't really change the meaning of a quote, even when paraphrasing it. What do you think? --Mworth (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I think I preserved the meaning of the quote. Third-party lauding still isn't neutral. Your pattern of edits would probably make many editors assume you're a PR rep. I'm assuming you're not, but I would suggest not to push it. On the quote, the full quote is also copyrighted and we try to use as little copyrighted material as possible. I invite you to come up with your own paraphrasing of the quote instead of complaining. Thank YOu.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am an historian. That is why I tend to use quotes the way I do. We are trained that way. But thank you for pointing out the copyright issue and also for the advice in general. I will work on an alternate paraphrase of the quote shortly. Please don't take my comment as a complaint - rather I am just trying to learn more about how things are done here. --Mworth (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interim, I made substantial changes to this entry in keeping with previous discussions with Ipatrol and believe it no longer reads like an advertisement. Mworth (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article as it stands now, it seems very neutral to me, and does not read like an advertisement. I would also like to mention that including well-sourced statements that assert the subject's notability are crucial. It's difficult to assert the importance of a company without coming across as non-neutral, but such a line must be walked... -kotra (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Basex/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Improve the neutrlity a bit, remove the buzzwords, as of now try to get this to emulate the Novell article.

Last edited at 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Basex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]