Talk:Level Platforms

Orphan Tag

This article is orphaned. Adding a link in the list of Companies in Ottawa and a reference in a single other article helps, but does not cure the problem that "there are very few articles which link to this one".

I would like to request that any proposal to remove the orphan tag be discussed on this page. It concerns me that there are editors working on this page which are single-purpose accounts, and although I thank them for being WP:BOLD in trying to work on the orphan status, removing the orphan tag is inappropriate. MKoltnow 17:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page being deemed as orphan? is there anything we can do to keep this page alive? Lynnettemclaughlin 21:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan is defined in the orphan tag as "there are very few articles which link to this one". It does not necessarily mean that this article is a deletion candidate; what it means is just what it says. One of the great advantages of Wikipedia is internal links from article to article. They help users read about similar topics or help them get context for an article they would like to learn more about. Removing the "orphan" tag without changing this article's orphan status is inappropriate. Make appropriate links in other articles to this one, and then it might be reasonable to remove the tag.

Whether this article is a candidate for deletion is a separate issue. MKoltnow 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MKoltnow, saying few articles is slightly vague. This entry is directly related to supporting the idea of Managed Services and its impact on the SMB market - available business tools on the market is a huge educational impact. Im fairly new to the ins and outs of Wikipedia and would opt to turn to you to help with guidance. Lynnettemc 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There is a link for "what links here" on the left margin of the page. Just looking at "what links here" for several articles makes it clear that "very few" articles link to this one. I do not know what a good number is. I just think that we can come to a consensus here. Anonymous editors suddenly removing the tag without any justification, edit summary or discussion here is not consensus.

The only other thing to be careful of is making sure this article remains encyclopaedic, and not some sort of PR piece. It has to remain WP:NPOV. P.S. "my" indentation level in this discussion is flush left, "yours" (Lynnettemc) is one indent, so if you precede your comments with one colon, they'll indent. It makes a little easier to follow who said what. Cheers. MKoltnow 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok im all for a consensus ;) and i completely agree removing the tag without any justification is not ideal. But how does one get consensus? anyways, i will re-evaluate the article situation and continue to hope that the artlicle links meet the undefined (more than few) criteria. This entry is not intended to be a PR piece but rather an educational entry. I really think building out the MSP story board is essential and believe we should have an entry. Thanks for your feedback!!! Lynnettemc 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's statements such as that one which concern me. WP:COI is policy. When an editor speaks about the subject of an article in the first person, it all but guarantees a conflict of interest. While such editors are not barred from editing, they will have a much greater trouble editing with a WP:NPOV than others might. Looking through the edit history of this article, I find other concerns. There are editors who appear to edit with multiple accounts. While not appearing malicious, it rouses suspicion, and it makes those editors' edit histories harder to follow, as one must look in multiple edit histories. I also find editors who are clearly present or former members of PR/Marketing of the company editing. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Statements must be verifiable and include statements from reliable sources. Finding things such as the registered trademark symbol inside the article text are other concerns. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an arm of anyone's PR department.

As far as building consensus, we can do that here on the Talk Page. We can discuss the article, its content, how to improve it, and so on. When other editors come along and make contentious edits, such as removal of the orphan tag, without leaving edit summaries and/or participating in the discussion here, they risk having their edits reverted as vandalism or violation of NPOV or other policy. I have nothing to do with the company, but the article is in my watchlist because I am concerned about it. MKoltnow 14:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purchased by AVG?

When you follow the link to their website, it now brings you to http://www.avg.com/ca-en/managedworkplace for "AVG Business Managed Workplace". I see a note in the article stating "On 12 June 2013, Level Platforms (LPI Level Platforms) was acquired by AVG Technologies" but if the product/company no longer exists by this name, then I suggest renaming the article and keeping the Level Platforms bit as history of the current product/company.Ahskrenaim (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purchaced by Avast=

Avast agreed to acquire AVG in August 2016 Managed Workplace is still an active product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.242.94 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Level Platforms. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516190728/http://www.channelprosmb.com/article/28458/Level-Platforms-Managed-Workplace-Now-Pre-Installed-on-Intel-Hybrid-Cloud/ to http://www.channelprosmb.com/article/28458/Level-Platforms-Managed-Workplace-Now-Pre-Installed-on-Intel-Hybrid-Cloud/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]