User talk:Jdadelman

efaxing

Jeff, I think it's about time the two of us had a friendly little chat, man to man, about your constant vandalism of any and all Wikipedia articles related to efaxing and especially the article on your company's product, eFax (fax service). How about it? I have a few points to make -

Since you are a senior employee of J2 [1], you are in constant breach of the Wikipedia policy relating to conflict of interest. If your product is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, and people have accepted that it is, then neutral editors will write about it in a neutral way, and any biased editing will be dealt with. That's what happens with other companies and products (including your competitors) featured in Wikipedia, and it works quite well. Wikipedia is not an advertising service.
Your product's legal page at http://home.efax.com/legal/efax/legal.html does not claim that eFax is a registered trademark, only a "trademark", so stop claiming it here. And as both of us know, it does not stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting registered, as is explained with plenty of references in the article. Get used to it.
The more you attack Wikipedia articles, the more it gets people's backs up, and the more they will dig for notable negative information about your company, the people behind it, and its modus operandi. Do you really want all that becoming public knowledge?
Over the past couple of years you have used many different user accounts and IP addresses (which are easily traceable to J2) for your attacks. In Wikipedia parlance this is known as sockpuppeting, which is seriously frowned on, and when used to evade the rules often results in users and their IP addresses getting banned from Wikipedia. If that happens to you, you will have no influence at all over the contents of the articles which you are trying to turn into advertisements.
Your apparent obsession about what Wikipedia says or does not say about your company and its product betrays a deep insecurity on your part. If your company is failing [2], then that's to be expected; fax is an obsolescent technology and it's not Wikipedia's fault. Why not just let people judge you on your record and reputation and move on confidently into the future? Be a man, not a child.

Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joel Adelman

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Joel Adelman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Crusio (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]