Talk:SoftLayer

2011 Name: SoftLayer (with capital "L")

I checked the company web site, and they just call themselves "SoftLayer" (with capital "L") the most often. So I moved to the more common name as per the article title conventions. If and when some other SoftLayer entity comes along, we can debate if the name needs to be more precise, but it does not need to be now. W Nowicki (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2015

On January 31, 2015, the softlayer facebook page received more than 800 negative reviews in a single day, mostly due to an image of a softlayer support correspondence leaked by a dissatisfied customer which in turn changed a 4 star rating to under 1.2 stars in a matter of hours. 42.60.45.244 (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam ^Sing! 12:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"On January 31, 2015, the softlayer facebook page received more than 800 negative reviews in a single day, mostly due to an image of a softlayer support correspondence leaked by a dissatisfied customer which in turn changed a 4 star rating to under 1.2 stars in a matter of hours" This not should be removed, source is SoftLayer itself: https://www.facebook.com/SoftLayer

Update 1: I've been banned from "Help Live Chat" before I could post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_Myspace.2C_Facebook.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F link It states: "Facebook: Facebook is generally not acceptable as a reliable source, as anyone may create a page and add comments, and there is no stringent checking of a user's real name and age. On occasion, Facebook pages that are clearly marked as official pages for notable subjects, with direct link to those pages from official websites, in which case they may be used as primary sources." I think SoftLayer Facebbok page is clearly marked as official page for a notable subject (IBM hosting company), with direct link from official website (http://www.softlayer.com/ and every subpage as link is in their footer)so I think it may be used as primary source.

That just might be acceptable if you want to link to a news story published by SoftLayer on their Facebook page, but you want to link to customer reviews which are, obviously, not official content created by SoftLayer. That's clearly not acceptable as the linked policy clearly states. For the absolute avoidance of doubt, customer reviews are not considered part of the SoftLayer Facebook page under the above policy, and additionally, as they're dynamic content, further disallowed, since you are unable to create a permanent link which people can use to view the same material a week, a month, a year or a decade from now. Nick (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Update 2 "but you want to link to customer reviews" False. Link I provided send to their Official Facebook Homepage. Fightclub10101

What do you wish to link to on the page, if not customer reviews ? Is there a specific post written by SoftLayer you would like to link to (remembering that customer reviews on the SoftLayer page are not written by SoftLayer but users). You should include the URL you would use in your reference, and explain how you will ensure the reference links to static rather than dynamic content. Nick (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Update 3 No I do not wish to link any any specific post written by SoftLayer. Their official facebook homepage (https://www.facebook.com/SoftLayer) is perfect as it meet requirements : "Facebook pages that are clearly marked as official pages for notable subjects, with direct link to those pages from official websites, in which case they may be used as primary sources." Using a specific post of their, as you suggest, would violate wikipedia guidelines because it would have no direct link from SoftLayer official website. Fightclub10101

Update 4 I keep being banned from help chat though I never use bad words or curse anything. Meanwhile I've been given names from a few people in the chat, but thats not a problem. If you started call me idiot or stupid or even worst.. there are 2 chances: or I insulted you and you're defending, or I was correct about guidelines and this is driving you crazy since as you said "Im an expert, your a wikipedia noob, stop disturbing us" Insults start only after I link wikipedia guidelines, never before, and thats a good sign I guess, since you have no idea how to answer you try vith verbal violence to scare me away.

Basically this is the scheme: (ME= me) (WM= Wiki Moderator and Expert) (WM2 3 4 Wiki Moderators Expert hidden in the inactives chatters until they can shout some insult) I join help chat :

ME: Why my sentence "On January 31, 2015, the softlayer facebook page received more than 800 negative reviews in a single day, mostly due to an image of a softlayer support correspondence leaked by a dissatisfied customer which in turn changed a 4 star rating to under 1.2 stars in a matter of hours" got censored and page locked? link:xxxx.xxx.xxx WM1: You never provided a source probably. ME: I did, if you click on the link I typed in my last sentence you can see it WM1: Oh I see, I will look. WM1: (5 sec later) I see you've been answered by a Mod, he wrote you didn't provide a source, then it's true.

ME: If you read with a little more attention I see I posted facebook website as source. WM1: Oh I see, I will look WM1: (5 sec later) Facebook can't be a realiable primary source. No way.

ME: Not only Facebook can be a primary and reliable source, it's also the virtual place where the fact I want to add on wikipedia page happened. WM2: You're dumb, WM1 just told you Facebook can't be a primary source. Go away.

ME: I can be dumb but I still think Facebook may be a primary and reliable source. WM3: Let me grab popcorns, we have an idiot kid here who think to be a Wiki expert! WM4: Let's go away stupid kid! Moderator already answered you, no way Facebook can be a reliable or primary source!

ME: I'm sorry I'm pissing you I'm a wiki noob so I had to read guidelines before posting. I didn't wrote guidelines I only try to follow them. WM1: So fierce: " We wrote the guidelines and you must respect them" WM2: start a chorus: "Idiot kid shut up! We wrote the guidelines! Go away stupid noob!" WM3: join the chorus: "Idiot kid shut up! We wrote the guidelines! Go away stupid noob!" WM4: close the chorus

ME: Here is the link at your beloved guidelines, if you took 1 minute to read talk page instead of insulting me you could already have found it: xxx.xxxx.xxx

SILENCE SILENCE SILENCE A LITTLE MORE SILENCE STILL A LITTLE MORE SILENCE

WM1: Mmmmmh I need questioning you Me: Ok. I'll answer

(interrogatory about possible relatives working for Softlayer or Molten, about me being a customer of them and so on)

WM1: A few more questions: ME: Ok I'll answer, but why these questions?

WM2 (he's a little slow, just came back from reading guidelines and he thinks "damn, he may be correct"): "Idiot kid are you still here? Go away noob!" WM1 I'm questioning you because you could be in a conflict of interest with one of the parts.

ME: As i told i have no conflicts, nor friend or relatives. However you locked the page and censore my intervention for a missing/invalid source not for "conflict of interest", so please stop questioning about it, or change the reason on wiki Talk Page...

WM3: "Idiot kid shut up! Listen to the MOD! Go away stupid noob!" WM1: (he feels like an hero now, two supportes are back) Yes we answered all your questions leave this channel now.

ME: No, you didn't answer at all. WM1: And btw your intervent on company wikipage can be considered difamatory, or simply against SoftLayer, we probably locked page for that reason..

ME: Well I think I'm only reporting a fact, but if you think I'm taking a side part you should change the reason of the lock from "missing/invalid sources" to "not fair considerations or such" WM4 (finally back, he had some problem understanding his own guidelines but np...): "Idiot kid still here?! We are experts so we know what we're talking about! Go away stupid noob!"

ME: I could be a noob kid, but you still have to change the reason of the lock.. WM1 As I told you we answered all your questions, I have to ban you if you keep on

Chorus: "Ban him! Ban the noob!"

Aaaaaaaand it's gone! I'm banned again.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The log entry above is false. The channel operators for the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help have logs which confirm this editor was dealt with in accordance with our established procedures, treated fairly and with respect at all times. Nick (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)