Talk:Symbiotic ORM (software)

I own/run the frozenelephant.com website. What does it take to keep pages on wikipedia? Is there some bias against my company?

Eric Schneider

No, there is no bias against your company. However, when content published on Wikipedia has been previously published elsewhere on the Web, we need to be sure that we have permission from the relevant copyright holders for it to be published under a free license. The best way to verify this is to e-mail a declaration of consent to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org. A volunteer will validate the declaration of consent, follow up with you confidentially if there are any further issues, and then confirm permission here. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, — madman 02:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in and note that without independently written and published sources, it is very likely that this article will be deleted even with the appropriate permissions. Referencing only to your company website is not sufficient. Please add more sources as soon as you can. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

screw-it, it's not an exact copy -just basic info. I added an external link and that gets deleted. I'll never add shit again. Pain in the ass bureaucratic bullshit. I should not have to give up control of my work just to help inform other developers.

It's not just basic info. It is indeed copyright infringement. We are not trying to discriminate against you, but we (until you release the source for use) cannot allow Wikipedia to be used to carry out copyright infringement. If you want help, contact me on my talk page. Rarkenin (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't infringe my own copyright; I am the CEO of Frozen Elephant Inc.

Why can't I be listed on the following page?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_object-relational_mapping_software And why can't it have an external link? Why does it keep getting removed?

There is not reason; just that you guys don't want me listed!

Show me the release of everyone else on the list...

it's all bullshit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschneider001 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric,

Editors who've removed information at this page and at List of object-relational mapping software are simply following normal Wikipedia policies - policies we (try to) follow consistently. I'm sorry if you feel you've been unfairly targeted. In answer to your question about why your additions to the list are being reverted, there are a couple of main points. Firstly, external links are generally avoided except in certain circumstances - see the external links guidelines. Secondly, editors are unsure that the software is "notable". That's a hard concept to define, but depending on the context it usually means the subject has to have been in the news, been widely written about, been historically important, or have a specific "claim to fame". Since the article about the software doesn't present any secondary sources, editors can't use it to establish the software's notability. That's not to say the software isn't notable, it's just that editors don't currently have much information to help us assess its notability.

As for this article itself, of course it goes without saying that you can't infringe your own copyright. The problem is that Wikipedia can. This is not your page (see WP:OWN but more particularly WP:COPY), and so it's not just you that has to have the rights to the content. In order to post content to this collectively owned resource you have to surrender your personal ownership of it, which means formally relinquishing your copyright in some way. I know that the article text is only a brief summary, but nevertheless it is a direct copy of text from a copyrighted web page and Wikipedia therefore cannot accept it. I hope you understand! --Noiratsi (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

An external link was used because of the constant Wikipedia required maintenance of a wiki page. And external link does not hurt anyone. While I understand it's not super-popular as others, it's of value, and used by some of my clients.

http://nuget.org/packages/SODA http://nuget.org/packages/Symbiotic_x86 http://nuget.org/packages/Symbiotic_x64

Funny how other sites don't seem to care.

Wikipedia has too many busy bodies who care more about bullshit rules than helping to inform users of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschneider001 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We may sometimes get it wrong, but most contributors are here because we want to help improve the quality of this encyclopedia. To suggest otherwise is absurd. But there are a lot of things which Wikipedia is not. What it is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not intended to help people locate a particular piece of software. It documents important things, people and events. Wikipedia doesn't have rules either. What it does have are records of general consensus—which can and does change.

You say that Wikipedia articles need maintenance. I think that's a misunderstanding. All a Wikipedia article needs to do to ensure its continued existence is to show people that its subject is something which ought to be in an enyclopedia. Apart from an assertion of importance and a reliable source backing up that assertion, a Wikipedia article can remain virtually blank for years without being deleted. Wikipedia will always be a work in progress. It's a symptom of a collaborative project that topics with greater interest get greater attention to their articles. But Wikipedia has some excellent niche content too, contributed by passionate editors who enjoy researching their subject and gathering together knowledge.

The fact that your contributions consist either of copying content from other sites or of adding links to other sites suggests that you are not one of those committed editors. That's fine—if you don't want to be an encyclopedia editor, you don't have to. But don't blame others for that, and please, don't insult me or the work I and others voluntarily give up our time to do. --Noiratsi (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well; All I'm trying to do is replicated what every other company/vendor/person is ALREADY doing, and I unable to do so. So wikipedia will have one less listing for no apparent good reason; -I'm sure that adds value to wikipedia. It's easy to delete someone other persons work; takes work to actually contribute pages. Have fun with your bureaucratic bullshit RULES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.218.250.21 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues at Symbiotic ORM (software)

I've been asked to weigh in here as a Clerk at the Copyright Problems Board. Wikipedia has very strict and deliberately stringent policies concerning how copyright material is used here. This is to protect our legal position and that of all people who re-use material we publish. Even if you own the copyright, you must comply to the letter with our rules for donating copyright material. There is no negotiation and no room for argument on this. You must follow these procedures or the article will be deleted.

One way to donate the material is to send an email granting permission, but it must comply with the precise wording and email address requirements outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials , otherwise it will be rejected. Alternatively you must place this exact wording on the page of the website which has the material you wish to donate:

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Note that this grants anyone, not just Wikipedia the right to freely to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes and cannot be revoked once granted. What you currently have on your web page ("I grant wikipedia permission to redisplay all content on wikipedia.org" is not compliant with our requirements as it only grants republishing rights to Wikipedia. You must use the wording above instead.

If you attempt to repeatedly restore the material without complying with our procedures, you will be blocked from editing, and the article's title (and its variants) will probably be "salted". That is, no one but an administrator will be allowed to place the article on Wikipedia.

I should warn you, though, that your article has no independent sources to establish the notability of this software. The guidelines are at Wikipedia:Notability. Even if the copyright problems are sorted out, this article in its present state will almost surely be taken to an Articles for Deletion discussion. - Voceditenore (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Who cares; how many busy bodies do you guys have to waste their time stopping me from doing what everyone else is already doing? Show me all their releases? The big mighty Wikipedia Editors!

Maybe I should sue for discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschneider001 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)