Talk:EComXpo

To Re-Add to the Article / Updates

Since I am allegedly COI and the article also should remain unedited until a decision was made, if the acts of user Cerejota were in conflict with the AfD and Deletion Review decisions and considered vandalism or not, here some obvious information user Cerejota would like to have referenced or where removed by him for unknown reason, but should be included in the article, because they are relevant to the subject and also reinforce notability (some of them).

Here are my recommendations for after the current conflict was resolved, but it is also part of that resolution process and part of my argumentations against the disruptive and uncooperative actions performed by user Cerejota who ignored all comments, sugesstions and decisions made in this case so far. Consider this part of the process that should have happened after the AfD debate (IMO).

1. 1st "Citation needed" template for "eComXpo is an educationally focused, online virtual trade show designed specifically for search, affiliate and interactive marketers". Citation Source and Reference: http://ecomxpo.com/faq.htm. Note: This is a statement that says what the company DOES and who they are consider to be their target audience. Any other source than the company itself would be "hearsay". I don't know what the purpose of the need for a "citation" of a companies mission and business goals are other than adverting the companies website, but ...
2. 2nd "Citation needed" template for "eComXpo uses the virtual trade show ASP solution created by inXpo." http://www.inxpo.com/NewWebsite/subpage_associations.htm. inXpo state publicly that eComXpo is a client of theirs. They also do so on their homepage. Information about their technology can also be found on their website. inXpo was referenced prior the edit by user Cerejota who removed it. Why he removed the reference and then placed a "citation needed" template is unknown to me.
3. For every business article in Wikipedia, which is more than a mere stub, are information provided about the date and location of company creation, the location of the headquarter and the name and title of key people of the company. Those information are also used to categorize companies. User Cerejota removed all those information from the article, but left some of the categorizations in place. I assume that he only forgot to remove them as well. The removal of the company information also caused the categorization to become ambiguous and might imply something that is not correct.
4. The company eComXpo, LLC was founded on 07/14/2004 as a Limited Liability Company in the State of Delaware (See Public Record for eComXpo, LLC at the Division of Corporations at the Department of State of Delaware). The corporate headquarter is located in Bannockburn, IL [1] and Illinois is also the state, where the company is doing business in (See Certification of Good Standing - State of Illinois Public Records, Search for File #: 01551655 or Name: ECOMXPO, LLC). The first conference was however in 2005, which also caused the categorization of the article to be under "established in 2005". Since it is an article about an event, one-time or reoccurring, date information are relevant. The information when the first installment occurred is a vital information that belongs into the article. The Template for Conventions also has space for this information and should be provided and not deleted. See "List of events" and "Years in existence".
5. All this are obvious information and referencing them in such detail as I did is usually not necessary. It is even considered "clutter" or "noise" by some editors, because it bloats the size of the article and clutters the list of references with trivial information that may turn Wikipedia into a directory rather than remaining focused and encyclopedic.
6. The size of a conference (in terms of attendees and also exhibitors for business conventions) is also a critical and important information. Those figures don't have to be reported by the event organizer, but it is common practice to make those numbers known. It is in the interest of the organizer to publish those information. The figures originate always from the event organizer himself, because it is rare that those data are tracked by an outside party or under the supervision of a notary or similar who is entitled to certify the accuracy of those numbers. The trade show template has a space for this information as well (Attendance), but it was also removed by user Cerejota. The last installment of the event had 8,297 Attendees (March 2007) [2]. The figures and dates for previous installments and the reference for them (to show that they were not made up by the editor, but also that those figures where tracked by an outside entity) where also removed by user Cerejota. Those are all relevant information for a convention again. I am part of the Wikiproject Business and Economics and we don't have a project for Conventions yet, like other projects do. I think it makes sense to suggest the creation of such a project and to put forth some guidelines and recommendations for the editors who are obviously not familiar with the subject, that they will be able to learn about what information an article should include in what not.
7. The company eComXpo, LLC does not warrant its own article yet (IMO), so the information about the company behind the convention should become part of the article too. Those information are not necessarily relevant to the convention itself and might be separated from it. This can be accomplished by creating a separate paragraph for the company. It might be advisable to add the "Infobox_Company" template in addition to the "Infobox Convention" template. Next to the name, type, date founded and location of the company should be mentioned John Grosshandler, Event Director - eComXpo [3] for the item "key people". This information was also in the original article and deleted by user Cerejota who is not part of the responsible Wikiproject and did not know better.
8. One fact that is not only interesting, but also adds to the notability of the convention is the fact that it happens virtual and not at a physical venue location. This is a new experience for many people and not a comon thing. The article used to describe who the real world event was ported into the virtual space of the internet. It also described who businesses perceived it in comparison to a real world event. A convention is a social event to a large degree and perception is a very important part of the experience. The (now deleted) information in the article were not original content, but referred to elsewhere published content. It also shows that eComXpo is a pioneer in this area. Most conventions still happen in the real world. If it will become a common experience in the future remains to be seen, but in any case does it add to the notability of the article, because it makes eComXpo either a pioneer or short lived novelty, which time will tell. Which case it might be should be added to the article in the future when enough references from reliable sources exist to confirm one or the other. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'd prefer to wait and see if my proposal gets a general thumbs up first, but then I'd be happy to work this into the article if your non-COI status isn't confirmed already. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Our friend picked a good time. It's weekend. I just posted at the COI Noticeboard, which I found and believe to be the best place for my request. I posted the stuff here at the talk page, for the reasons mentioned. Where did you make a proposal, except on this talk page? The step back approach is exactly what I also recommended. The article should be reverted back to its pre-deletion review status and then adjusted. I stated my opinion on the talk page to discuss them without ignoring everybody and do whatever I want to do. I also requested the review of Cerejota's behavior, which was IMO not only violating the rules of the Wikipedia community, but also the rules of behavior in the real world. If he would have done the equivalent of what he did here in a public place in the real world, I would have called the cops and contacted a lawyer as well. The cops for disturbance of the peace (among others) and the lawyer because of libel (or in the real world scenario, slander) with the purpose of preventing me on acting against his disruptive actions. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. This was hidden away from view, but I think this might warrant escalation, as this is a very serious insinuation you are making. You seriously have to reconsider your behavior in the last few hours... Thanks! --Cerejota 05:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats is something I would not act on as I stated. I doubt that you would show the same behavior in the real world as you have shown here, protected by anonymity and the belief that your actions here will bear no consequences for you in the real world. If you would, correction, if anybody body would do this in the real world, I would take the mentioned actions. This is not a threat, but a warning to adopt this type behavior outside the virtual space of Wikipedia. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference between real word and Wikipedia in term of law. Wikipedia is ruled by the laws of the State of Florida, and the United States of America. Stop making legal threats, hypothetical and otherwise, WP:NLT states: It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles. You are attempting to curtail this freedom by implying that my actions are legally reprehensible. Do not try to WP:GAME the system, you made a legal threat, and remain unapologetic about it. I am adding this to mediation.

However, I recommend you fire your counsel and hire a more competent one: I have not do a single libelous or slanderous statement; I have a firm opinion on your interest becoming a conflict of interest in the context of this article. There is no slander or libel there. This is because opinions, as any two-bit lawyer from, say, South Park Law School will tell you, are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

My behavior without being anonymous might or might not be any different, however, that is entirely irrelevant, and discussing me, instead of the contents of this article and its editing context, is a clear violation of Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views., and furthermore anonimity is both customary and essential to the project. If you have a problem with anonymity, I suggest you reconsider participating in Wikipedia.

Just in case, I have no connection to the affiliate industry or internet marketing whatsover, and my only interest, which I have stated before, is to seek unbiased representation of business information in order to keep Wikipedia away from becoming a platform for spam and marketing materials. Thanks!--Cerejota 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please refer to the place where this is written? I would like to verify this claim. Thanks for pointing out WP:GAME, that is what I was looking for in regards to your activities. I did not threaten you. I won't repeat what I already said and also object your spinning of things around I did not say. Cite me, don't interprete me. Thank you. I appologize in the case that you misunderstood me, which is unlikely, but not possible to determine with absolute certainty.

Your accusations and actions can not be done in the real world, only their equivalents. If the First Amendment would allow anybody to say anything then there are no legal rammifications for libel or slander (if you do it in writing). Correct me, if I missunderstood your comment, but this is what I read.

You are leading and implying something I did not say. Quote: "anonimity is both customary and essential to the project" There is something we both agree on. I see that we are making progress. Good.

Quote: "only interest, which I have stated before, is to seek unbiased representation of business information in order to keep Wikipedia away from becoming a platform for spam and marketing materials." I agree with you on this as well. I also have to add, that I am also interested in counter the bias and prejudges towards marketers that were created due to the abuse by some of them (the minority) in the past (and present), via education, helping in the fight against those negative examples and by my attempts of providing a positive example. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1) The Wikimedia Foundation is a dully registered non-profit organization in the State of Florida and the USA.

2) If you feel I have in anyway been libelous, please read WP:LIBEL. If you are not willing to backup your on going legal threats, I suggest you stop doing so. If you are willing to back them up, I suggest you stop editing wikipedia while you do so.

How am I supposed to back up something that is highly improbably (close to impossible) to happen and would have to happen first in order for me to be able to back it up. It is highly probability that I would be able to back it up, in the highlt improbably case that it actually going to happen at any point in time in the future. Then you could call me out on making legal threats I don't back up. As stated already at other places where you insisted that my statement is a threat: how many IFs are needed to avoid turning a statement of improbable nature into a theat? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

3) No. Be questioning if my behavior would be different if I weren't anonymous, you are in fact questioning anonymity in general, be suggesting it encourages people to behave differently, and questioning the good faith of those who choose to remain anonymous. I apologize if I am wrong in my interpretation, however, it certainly sounded like that to my ears.

There are examples that show that people tend to behave and act differently if they believe that they are protected by anonymity. I don't have to make that up. This does also not mean (not even imply) that I question anonymity because of that. I don't know where you got that ideas from, but you could not have gotten it from our discussion. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

4) Fair enough. This means we have contrasting POVs. Nothing sinister in that. Thanks!--Cerejota 21:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of speech at its finest. Good that we both agree on that, now lets try do the same with willingness to compromise to reach consensus. See my offer again with my added clarifications. You obviously misunderstood my original offer. I hope my clarifications make it clear now. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the citation needed tag from the first two lines. I think info in the template can also be restored as it is sourced now.

I am also re-writing to establish notability, I find your argument persuasive in the light of the AfD and DRV: if the community finds it notable, the article must state why (which is why the current tag is better than {{notability}}).

However conference attendance figures that only come from unverifed sources such as press releases? Not kosher. Not kosher at all. This has been a key point: I disputed notability and it seems the community has a much lower threshold than I; however verifiability is a separate issue. How do we know the company is not lying about attendance figures and other such information with marketing value? Thanks!--Cerejota 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the case with figures for virtually every event, but guess what, those figures are trusted to some extend in most cases. If there is a doubt, people will check the data indirectly. You can't find out the exact figure, but you can find out by circumstantial evidence if the figures are significantly off. FYI, box office figures also rely on the honest reporting of theatres and/or the studios (and whoever else has to get the information, because he gets a piece of the revenue generated from the admissions). If this destroys a belief you had before this, sorry, but that are the cold facts of reality. If you would have done proper diligence and research, you would have realized this yourself. Anyway, I noticed a while ago that this is not about right or wrong at all, but exclusively about you pushing your own agenda and opinion, which is obviously flawed and based on bias and prejudges. See the mounting evidence here and the other discussions that confirm this, with references. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

STOP editing the article! I will revert them as I said before.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to the edit summary of the edits I just reverted. You ask the question why something is relevant, after you removed the content that would have explained it and put it into context. Stop playing games. Sorry that over a dozen other editors and admins did not agree with you on the AfD and the deletion review. I can see that you try to dismantel the article piece by piece to then be able to get it deleted and your personal (obviously biased) opinion pushed through by force against the consensus of the community. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your unproductive attitude: I said I found some of your arguments persuasive, and edited to implement them! Are you actually reading what is written? Thanks!--Cerejota 05:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not unproductive by choice. Remember the COI accusation by any chance? And that there is a despute and disagreement for over 2 days?

What are you talking about? you did not edited the article to implement any of this. Your last edit was on 2007-08-25T22:23:06, that is 7 hours before you made this recent comment that immplies otherwise. Are you talking about the future? Your sense of chronological order seems to be a bit off. I noticed this already on earlier occasions.

Further comments to the content. Open for discussion.

1. The Target audience section, which is currently deleted is a repetition of statements made in the article already. It was deleted by Cerejota with the edit comment "OR", which means "Original Research" I believe. The provided references demonstrate that this is not OR, however, I agree that it could remain deleted, because of the duplication.
2. I already elaborated why I referred to my personal and non-commercial blog and for what purpose (if that was not clear already from the use in the article itself. I am referring to the content about the experience of a virtual trade show, which is currently not in the article). I expressed my opinion why I believe this to be important in the articles context, but I see also the problem with it. It is a two edged sword. I uploaded the image, which I used in my post to Wikipedia. Which IMO should be used to show what part of the experience will look like. The Image is located here Image:Ecomexpo sem floor full.jpg--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you gots to chill. For real. I edited [4] and comment [5]. I commented right before editing, not seven hours after as you say.

Sorry, but you continue to misrepresent both my attitude and my actions. This further increases my belief in you having a COI: why else why you misrepresent so wildly an editor you do not know?

Fortunately, unlike the real world (to use you distinction) we have a record that completely proves you wrong. Please we more careful when alleging things that are not true. Thanks!--Cerejota 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of resolving the dispute will I not explain what I believe, because it would not help nor is it relevant. I will only say that the link to the diff and the edit histories of the article and the talk page speak for themselves. I also cannot understand, how that would have to do with COI on my part. FYI: You are also leading again in the way you formulate your comments. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the "facts" templates. Quote: "I think info in the template can also be restored as it is sourced now". Could you do that as well, because I will not edit the article until the COI allegation against me was dismissed. Also, what do you think about the other comments and suggestions? Regarding the experience, eComXpo is a new way of business networking and not something that everybody who knows real life equivalents to the trade show will be able to envision how it would look on the internet. As I already said, there are different ways possible to accomplish the same thing. I used descriptions from different types of participants (visitor and exhibitor) and refered to them. I suggested as alternative to add at least the screen shot image that shows the exhibition floor while the show is running. I'd also like to hear your thoughts to the information about the history (I provided reliable 3rd party references) of the tradeshow and company as well as to the information about past events. References to the visitor figures are there. You could add a note to those references (eComXpo press releases) that those numbers came from eComXpo itself, just to make sure that people will know that. I would not have added that, because I know that almost in every case are visitor numbers to events coming from the organizer of the event himself, but some people obviously don't know that (you didn't know that for example). We are making progress here. Lets try to continue with productive conversations and edits like some of your latest ones and we might get the content issue resolved by ourselves after all. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Past Events, Official Site Links, Revenue Model

Regarding the reversals of the edits that removed the past events, the revenue model paragraph and the official site links section.

1. Past Events

It's an event that does not happen too frequently and not at some specific date to allow people to determine the exact date of a past or future installment. So it is not irrelevant. The dates itself are not information that require strong sources. It also does not make sense to require a source for each and every event individually. A simple search in Google returns plenty of references to the individual events by various people and companys who either write about the event or let others know that they/their company will be present there. There is absolutely no need to clutter the article with a 5-6 references for not irrelevant, but also not top relevant information that can be verified very easily

Here are two of such references for two of the events --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

1. For 2nd event: Andy Beal/Speaker
2. For 6st event: MidWestBusiness Events Calendar

2. Offical site links

There is a link in the template, but it is still common to have a designated paragraph for the links to the business or person the article is about to keep it separate from other external links or references. I also re-added the link to the section of the site that illustrates the revenue model of eComXpo, which brings me to ...

3. Revenue model paragraph

Its a free event so the information how they pay the bills is not irrelevant. That was not the reason for the removal, but I just wanted to say that in case somebody attepts to make this the reason during the debate. The section was rewritten by another editor. It was originally titled "eComXpo University" and explained the same thing with other words. The thing that was explained was not original content. It can be found on the eComXpo site itself. It was only rewritten to tone it down and not make it sound like an advertisement.

Since stuff is not on the homepage of the site. Free attendance reference, Exhibitor, Booth and Sponsorship Costs, Paid Subscription. All there, which means that the paragraph was not made up by the editor. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

I explained my reasons for the reversals in great detail due to the past dispute with this article and the editors involved (which includes me). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)