Talk:CTERA Networks

Speedy deletion

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CTERA Networks from two years ago. Glrx (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Marokwitz (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You should reply on this page because this is where people will look. Glrx (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What I wrote there was more of a personal note. I did spend a lot of research time on this article, and sincerely did not try to promote anything, other than give information on a topic that I personally find interesting. I'm no spammer by any stretch, as evidenced by my extensive contributions history on a wide area of topics. This company is notable. I proposed to work collaboratively to resolve any concerns you may have before deleting my work. What do you say? Marokwitz (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The article's many sources are not independent secondary sources. Most of the articles are reporting something that the company did (such as CTERA will offer X, CTERA rolls out Y, and CTERA upgrades Z). Many of the source publications are both narrow and short. Publications with limited scope (Small Cloud Builder?) do not offer weight. Publications that have wider appeal don't say much about CTERA; the Datamation source just mentions that CTERA is a provider in a list of providers; it doesn't offer any review. Being mentioned in passing does not show WP:N. The two pages in Cloud Computing Bible state CTERA CloudPlug has some features, but it does not offer a review of those features. The two pages basically say that CTERA CloudPlug is Network Attached Storage with a slight twist on user interface. It does not comment on the merits of those differences. Consequently, the two pages are just mention.

At this point in time, the company is not notable. What it provides can be notable, and WP already has articles about cloud computing.

Glrx (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I disagree with your reading of the sources completely. The given sources are reliable sources, they are secondary sources, and they are more than enough to establish notability. Most of the given sources are specifically about CTERA and give in depth coverage of the company. The cited book about cloud storage dedicated several pages to the company. Regarding your example, Small Cloud Builder is a sub-section of the well known SmallNetBuilder publication. Any other editors / administrators care to comment? Marokwitz (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, you shouldn't delete this article, it is well written and you have no reason to delete it. I suggest you to focus in making new articles instead of deleting articles for no reason--Someone35 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised this is up for "speedy deletion", as someone who made a few editorial changes to this a while ago. I don't see how a company regularly covered by multiple industry analysts and the leading industry publications can be considered not notable.

Granted - many analyst reports by the likes of Gartner, Forrester are not open sources - but the references do list some of them quoted, and here are a few very recent additional examples: http://news.yahoo.com/value-money-distinguishes-ctera-twinstrata-nasuni-champions-cloud-130257321.html, http://www.nemertes.com/impact_analyses/ctera_appliance_spotlights_cloud_smb_dr_option and http://www.storage-switzerland.com/Blog/Entries/2011/4/27_CTERAs_Cloud_Attached_Storage_adds_File_Sharing_to_Cloud_Backup.html (this is actually a reference in the article but with no link, which I will fix, and I also noted that it states at the bottom that Ctera is a not a client)

I agree that some of the references should be removed mostly because they are redundant, while others like those I just mentioned should be added. There are additional editorial changes I'll be making over the next few days for consistency and brevity.

I don't see, however, any self-aggrandizing statements, dubious resources or obvious commercial pitches, or anything so severe as to merit speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgehog10 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is not up for speedy deletion - that issue was resolved in January. It's up for AfD now. Glrx (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest concerns

What is your relationship (if any) with the company Marokwitz? -- samj _in^out 18:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is written in a neutral tone and cites reliable, third-party, independent published sources as required by Wikipedia policies. I have contributed to thousands of articles on a wide array of topics and would appreciate if you assumed good faith. Regarding your question, I already answered above. None. I and happen to be interested in Cloud Technology and in the Middle East, among other topics, and frequently contribute in these areas. It looks as if you have gone and deleted a ton of quality, reliably source contributions that I made in this area, I find this totally disruptive. If you find any place where I violated the neutral point of view, let me know. I'm confident that I have never done so. Marokwitz (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article reads like an advertisement. I disagree with the characterization of citing "reliable, third-party, independent published sources". Most of the sources read like reworked CTERA press releases. Some articles have only a sentence or two about a new product release. This source merely drops the name (and implies that CTERA has fewer than 700 customers). Some articles have quotations from possible outside sources, but the origin of those quotations are not clear; they could have been in a press release. There is not the sense of the sources doing their own research about a collection of cloud storage vendors and commenting about the strengths, weaknesses, or achievements of the company products. I'm leery of CTERA's WP:N. Where is the evidence of widespread adoption or significant achievement? The only serious claim appears to be improving the snapshot feature of ext3 to get Next3, but where are sources describing acceptance of dynamic snapshot allocation? Glrx (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, this article cites plenty of reliable and respectable publications, which appear to be neutral and independent of the company. If you find any specific sources that you think don't qualify as reliable secondary sources, please remove them or post them here for discussion. The specific source that you mentioned about the Ovum report doesn't appear to be a reworded press release, it is an analysis by Datamation, a respectable IT newspaper published since the 1950's, of a report by Ovum. I don't own this article, feel free to rewrite any portions that you feel are problematic. But you two are being too harsh. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where people are encouraged to write articles about their topics of interest without being attacked for being too enthusiastic. Marokwitz (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not our responsibility to rewrite your articles to bring them into compliance with policy. I'm fairly ambivalent about CTERA, but when it and related articles (cloud storage, cloud storage gateway) have similar quality problems and start making their way into articles I do care about (cloud computing) then I'm a> going to try to get the authors to bring the articles into compliance (something you have refused to do, apparently because you don't see the problems despite having them explained by two neutral editors) and failing that, b> enforce policy. -- samj _in^out 20:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not "my" article. I would be happy to and already offered to collaborate on any specific improvement or change that you want to suggest, but so far you have not actually proposed anything, just vaguely complained. Which sentences or paragraphs do you feel are not compliant with what policy? What are the changes you propose based on independent reliable sources? Marokwitz (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see isolated problems with particular statements or particular sources. When I read the article and when I examine the sources, I'm left wondering why the company is notable. Plenty of companies raise capital to develop and sell products, but that doesn't mean they are notable. Using a fashionable buzz word such as "cloud computing" does not confer notability. Notability implies a significant impact, and neither the article nor the sources indicate that impact. Glrx (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability

• Comment. Text from Btrfs article about ext3/ext4:

In 2008 the principal developer of the ext3 and ext4 file systems, Theodore Ts'o, stated that ext4 is a stop-gap and that Btrfs is the way forward, having "a number of the same design ideas that reiser3/4 had".

Glrx (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you meant next3? If so, then do you want to add it to the article? Marokwitz (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

nice article - let's keep it

i have read through the discussion here and at both the speedy delete and afd pages. this article is fine. and it is not an advertisement. not a single flattering comment is written in the article - all facts and figures. Soosim (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that a user just re-added the tag claiming this article "is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view.". Is this tag really applicable? What makes this article sound like an advertisement? Which parts are not neutral? What does the user propose to change in order to ensure this article is written from a neutral point of view? Marokwitz (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it reads like a brochure. A good place to start would be explaining *why* the company is notable. -- samj _in^out 08:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You completely failed to respond to the points raised above by other editors. Repeating the mantra "it reads like a brochure" is not helpful. Soosim wrote that it couldn't be an advertisement since it contains no flattering comments, only facts and figures. You didn't respond. I asked further, what makes this article sound like an advertisement, and how is the tag "Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view" applicable. No response from you. How would adding more information on why the company is notable make it sounds less of an advertisement? The opposite sounds true. Marokwitz (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

sam put a 3RR Warning template on my discussion page. very funny. i did one revert 5 days ago. can someone find the WP:RULES FOR CONNIVING EDITORS that might be appropriate for him? thanks. Soosim (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, I think there is consensus on this talk page that the tag placed by samj is inappropriate, as evidenced by the above discussion. Instead of responding to your points in this discussion, this user made a choice to bully you by posting misleading and inappropriate warning messages on your personal talk page. Such behavior violates the civility principles of Wikipedia and is not tolerated. Marokwitz (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironic that you should respond to a personal attack with a claim that I'm being uncivil. What I see is that multiple editors have raised issues with the article and rather than try to resolve them (I do note that there are some assertions of notability now, which is an improvement) a number of editors with suspiciously similar interests (including Israel, where the company is based) have repeatedly removed tags. Puffery like "CTERA is easy to use and ideal for small businesses that lack a dedicated IT staff" reads like it was pulled directly from a company brochure (Wikipedia is not a soapbox) and the product catalog is also inappropriate (Wikipedia is not a web host).

Please focus on improving the article so the tags can be removed rather than attacking an uninvolved editor — for all the bitching about WP:COI because I happen to be an expert on the subject, I'm totally neutral about CTERA — if anything I think their/your products are actually quite innovative... being disruptive is not. -- samj _in^out 09:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging

"Tag bombing is the addition of multiple tags to an article or adding one tag to multiple articles. Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page (or in a "reason" paramter where one exists) to explain why the tags are needed. While some tag bombing may be a well-intended request for clarification, tag bombing can be used as a way to promote a point of view. Unjustified tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing. Editors who engage in tag bombing after being asked to stop may be blocked from editing Wikipedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silmiyyah (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. What do you call this and this? -- samj _in^out 08:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

can someone please explain what this tag is for? what is not neutral about the article (as opposed to potential issues related to notability or prose written like an advertisement, which have their own tags)? Jeff Song (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I would remove the NPOV tag. When the tag is attached, there's supposed to be a talk page explanation of a specific issue. The tag is supposed to attract additional editors to address the issue. If the discussion dies down for a few days, then the tag is supposed to be removed. Although I believe the article does have a slight NPOV issue (some editors appear enamored of the company), I don't see that bias warranting the NPOV tag in the first place. Even if the tag were warranted, it is not serving its intended purpose and should be removed. Glrx (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Went to remove it but you'd beaten me to it. It's not gratuitously positive, but it still reads like an ad. -- samj _in^out 22:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, well it's already tagged for being like an ad. do you have suggestions how it can be fixed? Jeff Song (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironically making it sound more neutral (rather than a puffy brochure written by a PR department) would be a good start. Balancing the pro-CTERA prose with some of the issues would be helpful too. -- samj _in^out 13:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestion on how to make it more neutral? Is there any material about "the issues" you woudl like to add, for balance? Otherwise, I find that these generalities are not very helpful. Jeff Song (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given half a dozen examples below. -- samj _in^out 00:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's see how we can address them. Jeff Song (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability v2.0

Glrx, where did you see that an admin has recently removed this article over notability? Jeff Song (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was recently deleted; see AfD closing comments by admin. He was asked to reconsider; he did, and he withdrew. Subsequent admin did not delete the article. Glrx (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. So, if the subsequent admin did not delete it - isn't the notability question settled? If not, what else can be done to fix it? Jeff Song (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:N is not settled. "By default" is not a ringing endorsement of N.

N is shown by finding reliable, independent, sources that assess the company's impact. There are lot of people in this world, but that doesn't mean each is notable enough for an article in WP. There are also lots of companies. All companies need to provide a product or a service, so just a list of products or services is not sufficient. What makes Ctera notable? I've only seen a few articles that compare and contrast Ctera to competitors, and they don't rank Ctera well or describe Ctera has being distinguished from the pack. (I also get the sense that Ctera failed at the SOHO market, so it shifted to another market; success in the new market is not clear.)

When I first started looking at Ctera, I thought the development of the filesystem would make it notable. When I looked at discussions about the filesystem, I discovered it was both backward and forward compatible with ext3 -- in other words, it didn't add any new features to ext3; the modification allowed an ext3 feature to use dynamic allocation rather than static allocation. The modification may be reasonable, but it does not sound significant. I'm also left wondering about the signifcance of the underlying feature. When I looked at acceptance of the filesystem, I discovered that even the developer of ext3 advocated for a different filesystem.

Glrx (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It says nothing about "comparison to other products" or "ranking well" in those comparisons or being successful in this or that market. It seems you are not disputing that there is a number of articles that describe the subject (CTERA) in considerable detail (that was my point in my previous edits summary - there are more than 30 such articles used as references in our article ) - but are trying to see how the subject is better than other similar products - but that's not part of the notability criteria. Jeff Song (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No. How do you define "significant coverage", "reliable sources", and "independent of the subject". Read the last AfD where WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary_criteria is raised. Although there are many sources, we are looking for secondary sources. Secondary sources review the landscape and compare and contrast. Furthermore, I do not see lots of articles discussing Ctera in considerable detail. I see a lot of articles parroting what Ctera feeds them. Glrx (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Those terms are defined in WP:N. Are you really arguing that The Washington Post, to take just one example, is not a reliable source? Or that it is not independent of CTERA? Or that its 500+ word review of CloudPlug (which btw, compares it with other solutions on the market such as Pogo, Mozy and Fabrik) is not "significant coverage"? But I think what is really telling here is that you concede that these very arguments were already raised in the AfD - and were not convincing enough to get the article deleted on Notability grounds. So what is the point of rehashing them here? You tried to convince people with these arguments, and failed. You can now either take it to another AfD, or let it go, but it does not seem that tagging it with a notability tag is the proper solution. Jeff Song (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are ducking the issue. I have no qualms about TWP being reliable and being a wide source, but TWP doesn't show that Ctera did anything significant. To me, TWP article raises doubt about Ctera's product line and its suitablity for the SOHO market. Datamation didn't give Ctera a ringing endorsement either. That TWP is in the list of articles does not mean that all the other articles have similar stature. If look at SheevaPlug and Plug computer, I find that the Marvell and Ctera products are apparently the same SheevaPlug package. Ctera cobbled some stuff together, made a product that TWP considers expensive and too sophisticated for average consumers, and apparently has minor volume. IIRC, competitors lay claim to 50,000 units. There are plenty of notablity issues that the article does not but should address. Glrx (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "notability", in the wikipedia sense, with "market leading", "valuable" or "endorsed". Notability, in the wikipedia sense, has absolutely nothing to do with being "endorsed" or recommended by reliable sources. You may be right that CTERA did nothing more than cobble together some other existing products, that its products are inferior to the competition, or sold less well - but that has nothing to do with its notability, which is measured by coverage in reliable independent sources, even if that coverage is negative or critical. Are you denying that there is coverage in reliable, independent sources? Jeff Song (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary, sources. If Ctera is notable, such coverage should be easy to find (compare WP:UNDUE). I am not confusing N with market leading, valuable, or endorsed. Glrx (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You agree that The Washington Post is both reliable and independent, but you said "TWP article raises doubt about Ctera's product line and its suitability for the SOHO market". Similarly, your criticism of Datamation as a source is not that it is unreliable or not independent of CTERA, but that it "didn't give Ctera a ringing endorsement" - that's what leads me to believe that you are in fact confusing N with market leading, valuable, or endorsed. If TWP and Datamation, both reliable and independent sources, published a detailed product review that concluded CTERA is a crappy product that is unsuitable for the SOHO market - that would be perfectly fine to satisfy the notability requirement Jeff Song (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This article skirts the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies in a number of areas — is it verifiably notable? That's debatable (and actively being debated). Does it read like an advert? A number of uninvolved editors think it does but various article authors deny it (despite looking like a product catalog). Is it neutral? I don't think so (the only coverage is positive, not one negative word has been said about the company or its products). Is there a conflict involved? A number of authors are interested in articles related to Israel (where the company is based) and their behaviour is typical of conflicted editors, but they deny it.

In general I am very unhappy about the way CTERA's staff and/or fanbois are behaving, but I wouldn't care nearly as much were it not spilling over into areas I do care about, like cloud computing. Rather than spinning wheels arguing here, how about going and finding some irrefutable sources (assuming they exist) and dealing with the neutrality issues. I don't have a problem with conflicted editors provided they comply with policy. The article was already speedy deleted once as blatant advertising only to be recreated (as blatant advertising IMO) and the second deletion debate ended with no consensus. If we can't find a middle ground then I'll happily nominate it again. -- samj _in^out 09:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok Sam, you need to take a step back. You of all people should know that an interest is not a conflict of interest, and that if it were, you would be the first to need to steer way clear of this article. You accusations against editors who disagree with you are unseemly, and need to stop, and your tone (People are "denying" your apparently baseless accusations, they are "fanbois"[sic]) needs to be moderated.

To the matter at hand: I've asked you twice, above, for specific suggestions on how to make this article better, how to make it less of an ad. You've provided no response, beyond repeating the same generalities. You are asking for 'irrefutable sources' - do you think there's any problem with the detailed coverage provided by the Washington Post? if so, please spell it out. If not, drop this line of argument. Jeff Song (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, here's some examples:

Your examples seem to do with Neutrality, not Notability, so I took the liberty of moving them down into a new section, below. There are separate tags for notability and neutrality, and I hoe we can address them independently. Jeff Song (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality v.2

• "It offers [X], a [Y] for fast backup and restore, along with [Z] for protection from local disasters."

• "In addition to [X] capabilities, the company provides an installable backup agent that can [do Y] and server agents for [Y]."

• "Using the CTERA Portal, CTERA's cloud service delivery platform, service providers can [do X and] create their own branded cloud storage offerings"

• "The CTERA Portal management system is available in either [X] edition, hosted by CTERA, or [Y] edition, installed in a corporate or service provider data center."

• "CTERA [makes] cloud storage less complex and more accessible to small businesses."

• "[CTERA products] focus on delivering "cost-effective and user-friendly" managed services"

• "In 2010, a new [A] was unveiled that can be used for [B]. [C] was also introduced to make backup and recovery easier and enable [D]."

• etc.

The article is essentially a product catalog and infomercial rolled into one, neither of which have any place here. How is it you consider an article that is 100% positive neutral? -- samj _in^out 23:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting some examples of what you think is non-neutral. I'd like to address them one at a time. Let's start with

• "It offers [X], a [Y] for fast backup and restore, along with [Z] for protection from local disasters."

Are you saying it doesn't offer product X Y or Z or that saying it offers them is not neutral? If the former, we can fix it with sources. If the latter, I am not sure what is not neutral about it. Let's compare with Google Earth. It has an entire sections dedicated to "features", among them 'Google Street View provides 360° panoramic street-level views and allows users to view parts of selected cities and their surrounding metropolitan areas at ground level.' or 'One can also get directions using Google Earth, using variables such as street names, cities, and establishments.'- how is that different from the "It offers [X], a [Y] for fast backup and restore, along with [Z] for protection from local disasters." that you object to here? Jeff Song (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So, any response? I'll remove the tags if there is no opposition. Jeff Song (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It still sounds like an WP:ADVERT, as identified by a number of editors (including myself). Rather than wasting any more time discussing it here, how about fixing the content because I really WP:DGAF about CTERA except for the spam in other areas of the wiki. Thanks. -- samj _in^out 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

i'm with jeff. it is no different than many other company's pages (though this one is very well written and very well sourced). and yes, i know 'other stuff exists' has no application in the world of wiki. this article stands on its own. so let it. Soosim (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sam - on this page there are exactly two editors, including you, who have voiced ad-related concerns. Conversely, there are six editors (Soosim, Marokwitz, Hedgehog10, Someone35, Silmiyyah and myself) who think it is quite well written with no obvious issues, so I 'm not swayed by your appeal to numbers. That said, I am happy to address whatever issues you and Glrx raise, so we can fix the content and remove the tag. That's what I have attempted to do above. Do you have any response to my questions about your first item? Jeff Song (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff should not have moved a user's comments from notability to neutrality. Editing another's comments (even if they are wrong) is a no-no. That an article parrots press releases does not address notability.

Consensus is not about voting.

The practice is a POV tag sticks around until the conversation dies down. Consequently, I have no trouble with the neutrality tag disappearing. Ad and notability should stay. Looking at the table of contents, the most developed part of the article is Products. There is material about what the company does and sells, but where is the material that describes that the company has had a significant impact? Skip the company quotations such as "The stated goal of CTERA is to ...". Skip the press releases. Find some broad secondary sources that say Ctera has done something notable.

Glrx (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we've already gone over this, above: Notability is not the same as 'had a significant impact'. Notability, in wikipedia, means "was covered in significant detail by a reliable 3rd party". So if you are asking for material that describes that the company has had a significant impact, as a condition for removing the tag, you are asking for something which is not in the wikipedia policies. Jeff Song (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflicted editors v.2

5,000 words spent discussing multiple issues with a 1,000 word article rather than addressing concerns raised by multiple editors. I WP:DGAF any more — mass debates like this one suck the life out of Wikipedia. User:Glrx covers it nicely above: "Skip the company quotations. Skip the press releases. Find some broad secondary sources that say Ctera has done something notable." -- samj _in^out 00:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I now have evidence that at least one of the recent contributors to this article is an employee of the subject and as such I'm tagging it {{coi}} until such time as the various issues discussed above are resolved. Kindly focus on that rather than continuing this discussion. -- samj _in^out 00:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

almost everything in the article is sourced to secondary sources. I'll remove the one or two that are sourced to company press releases. Finding sources that say the company has done something notable is simply not a requirement, so I'll pass on that. Jeff Song (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok done. Anything else? Jeff Song (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need the product catalog? -- samj _in^out 00:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

probably not. what do you suggest? I can see trimming, or removing, the 4 bulleted products under the "hardware" section, and leaving just the intro sentence. Jeff Song (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we could probably just roll the intro sentence up into the lede — no need whatsoever to talk about stuff like "The company favors the VAR channel as its sales channel"... who cares? -- samj _in^out 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, I've drastically cut down that section. Let me know what you think. Jeff Song (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had a crack at the history section too — I think it looks a lot more encyclopedic now. -- samj _in^out 01:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

looks good. can we remove the tags now? Jeff Song (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's been more than a month now, I am removing the tags. Jeff Song (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I just checked over this yesterday and while I'm still unconvinced that things like partnerships — not to mention the product catalog — are relevant, I'm going to exercise my right to WP:DGAF. The experience with CTERA staff and/or fanbois has left a bad taste in my mouth though... I'd have expected more. -- samj _in^out 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Jeff Song (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of ext3 implies criticism of next3 and notability

I added the Ts'o comments because notability is an issue. I believe they should be restored. Glrx (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ts'o comment do not mention Next3 nor CTERA. They are not related to this article. Jeff Song (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)