User talk:MHargraves

Conflict of interest

Hello, MHargraves. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I am not advertising an organization, and I am not promoting myself, or a cause. I am introducting a new concept for those in my field of work. I am not trying to be particular here, just direct. I went out of my way to only introduce myself as the creator of the idea, which I am sharing free to the world. I am not doing any advertising for work, nor selling anything on my site. The site is being linked by Microsoft due to a blog I created there introducting the Schema, and have had no negative feedback from Microsoft, or any other site linking or referencing the material on my site. MHargraves (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. Wikipedia is going to require independent some reliable sources before anything about spider schema gets accepted into this article. Please see this. Studerby (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Spider Schema is posted on the internet, and is open to comments (there are none) and has been for a month now. The site shows up in all search engines, and an ongoing post was made on the Microsoft SQL Server Forum, with no negative comments up to now. The purpose of my posting is to expose the Spider Schema. Your ongoing deletions of my posting is preventing the world from seeing and experiencing a new way of doing data warehousing. Please be specific about what you find wrong in my posting, rather than deleting it. MHargraves (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have been specific; the material added to the article must be supported by INDEPENDENT (not you and your friends) RELIABLE SOURCES (reference-quality material that anyone can read). Please read ---> this <--- and ---> this <--- Wikipedia doesn't include things just because it's on the internet somewhere.

Get some DB trade journal or even some well known DB blog (e.g. Tom Kyte) to write up this idea and then there's a serious chance it will be included in the article; until then, it's just original research (yes, you might want to read that too). Studerby (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is We? You have been specific, however you do not own or control Wikipedia. The person who posted my site is not a friend, he is a professional in the Data Warehouse world knows more about it than you ever thought of. Have you any in depth knowlege of this subject? Additionally, SAP, and Microsoft are currently posting links to the Spider Schema site. MHargraves (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"we" is long-time Wikipedia editors, who understand the policies and procedures, and have watched, at a guess, a thousand editing disputes get resolved. No, I don't own Wikipedia, but I've been here a long time and am one of the top 2,000 editors (by total edit count). Since this is a dispute about Wikipedia editing practices, my experience as a DBA is irrelevant; it happens to be considerable, albeit in high transaction rate web environments (serving a quarter million ads per hour) on Oracle and MySQL. I've never had primary responsibility for a DW implementation. But as I said, it doesn't matter; the objection to the material is based on Wikipedia's sourcing rules, not the content itself (although you also embed external links improperly in the text, that's a trivial secondary issue, see WP:EL).

This is not the first editing dispute on Wikipedia; if you or your associate ("I've been working with Mark for a couple of years now", he said) continue to add the material into the article, Bob or I will start one of the dispute resolution processes, so that other previously uninvolved editors can review the dispute, and you can get an assurance that "it's not just two guys being jerks". While you have no reason to believe me, I don't know Bob and have never worked with him before on Wikipedia; the fact that we're doing the same things is due to us having the same understanding of the way Wikipedia articles are supposed to be developed.

Another way of looking at it; suppose that instead of having published something about databases, you instead started a new band and self-produced an album, put up a website and got booked into a nightclub. Just because the band has a website and a club owner says nice things about the band, it isn't enough (yet) to get a Wikipedia page. If the band gets a contract with a major label, it's still not enough yet. We actually have a written criteria, because it comes up so often, see WP:BAND. Other content additions are similar; being a college professor isn't enough for an article, (just) getting a book published isn't enough, etc. etc. In a sense, it's not really up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether things get in the encyclopedia or not, we instead depend on the published opinions of 3rd parties.

BTW, I've found an MS forum post that links to the spider-schema.info site, and that's it; I haven't found any SAP links yet, or anything close to what I'd call an independent reliable source yet. And I've looked; I've spent about two hours looking for 3rd party references, using both Google and Bing, and I've come up empty. While Spider Schema may be the best thing since Unicode, nobody but you and people associated with you are saying that in public, that I can see, so far. If you've got links that contradict that, post 'em on a talk page and I'll take a look. Studerby (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Data warehouse, you may be blocked from editing. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about my posting is soapbox, promotional or advertising? I have introduced a new Schema for Data Warehousing, I have created a peer reviewed website and white papers to support my schema. I have nothing to gain financially from sharing the new Schema as I am not selling anything. MHargraves (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't require "selling anything" for it to be promotional. Self-published results don't count as far as notability. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks for your comments. I agree with your posting here. However, the information on my site is peer reviewed, open to the public for comments. MHargraves (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been published multiple places where you don't control the content? That's the test. 50.131.220.134 (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer yes. I have no control over Microsofts site, let alone SAP or others. MHargraves (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only item I can find at Microsoft is your own publication on the Technet forum. I was unable to find other references for MS or SAP, using Google. Could you give a link to the pages where Microsoft or SAP published something about this? RonaldKunenborg (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]