User talk:Mjrenwick

Speedy deletion nomination of Nefsis

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Nefsis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Nefsis and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on WiredRed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

COI

As an employee at WiredRed you should not be creating or editing articles on the company or its products. Please see WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nefsis

I now understand that i am unable to write articles about companies I work for but I only created this page because people were asking why we didn't have a wiki page and why software such as Live meeting, Webex, live meeting, Zoho did. I tried to base my page as close to the templates set out by the companies mentioned above and feel that it was easily as neutral as some of the other articles. Not having a Wiki page puts us at a distinct disadvantage as we cant effectively be on pages such as Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjrenwick (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not part of your marketing activity, our purpose is not to help companies develop or maintain a competitive advantage. If your business model depends on Wikipedia for promotion then you are in deep trouble. Can you really not see the difference between WebEx and... what did you say the name of your product was, again? Let me make it really easy for you: check this rough and ready comparison. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly are not relying on wikipeadia for our marketing but one of the most powerful marketing tools at the moment is google and searching for web conferencing always ranks Wiki pages very highly. As I understand it, Wikipedia would appear to be an online Encyclopedia, i.e. a work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge or, as the Oxford English Dictionary (the premier dictionary of the English language – according to Wikipedia) defines it: n. book, often in a number of volumes, giving information on many subjects, or on many aspects of one subject.

Nefsis is 5th generation of ePop (as explained in deleted Wikipedia page, if you run your Google fight with this name you will see we fair a little better

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=webex&word2=epop

Having said that, the wikipedia entry for “google fight” clearly states: “People often use this for entertainment by implying one subject is better than another, such as Microsoft vs. Google, with Google the winner. It can also be used as a measure of competitiveness; Salam Pax posted a Googlefight result between himself and Raed Jarrar on their blog in 2002, as their worldwide readership rose in the prelude to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.”

Googlefight has been highlighted as an example of a site making money from contextual advertising, as well as one that derives its longevity from community participation (in this case, the always changing search terms).

Are you stating, officially, that wikipedia is to be merely taken as an object of derision and/or that there can be no level playing field or have I missed something?

In a world that Wikipedia is seen as an objective, as opposed to subjective, reference it would appear that you are stating that the size of company is the defining factor. Can you please officially confirm this statement?

In terms of size of company we are smaller than Webex but in terms of the technology we are an industry leader which has been recognised recently by Frost and Sullivan: http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/meawards-hall-of-fame-feature.pag?mode=open&sid=189742511

With regard to edits by connected parties, again drawing reference to WebEx, I must say that there would appear to be evidence of nepotism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Steven_li&oldid=202656489

Not only is it a blatant admission but Mr Li’s job title is “Vice President, Technology Innovations at Webex Communications, Inc”

What happened to the Wikivision?:

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.

The Wiki vision is alive and well, it never included "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely promote his own commercial interests at someone else's expense". There's nothing "sharing" about spammers. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you confirm which definition of spamming you are referring to? I don’t feel that my article is guilty of either Wikipedia’s definition of Spam or Wiki Spam and I am only trying to expand the depth of Wikipedia’s knowledge in this particular industry which I feel is under represented. It would be nice if you would respond to the questions I have raised. I would also be happy to demonstrate the software to you so that you can make an informed/educated decision.

WP:SPAM. Abuse of Wikipedia, a charitably funded volunteer-run project, for commercial gain. I know you don't think what you were doing was wrong, and that is a large part of the problem. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before asking customers/experts in the field to re-write the entries for me I would like to know which part of the articles would be deemed unacceptable? Can you also confirm that CTO of Webex gets away with it because they are a big company? If these articles were written by a third party would they have been accepted? Hope you have a good weekend, the forecast is looking wonderful 

Asking other people to edit on your behalf is no better (see meatpuppetry). Basically this is all covered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I have to say that constantly making comparisons between your product and one that is a household name having been advertised on prime time TV around the world is not going to help your case. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who made the nomination, the thing that really got my attention was the high buzzword and WP:Peacock term density. Follow that link to see how Wikipedia strongly prefers to avoid peacock terms even if demonstrably true. (Pure advertising puffery as in the original is right out.) Instead, lay out the facts which lead to that conclusion, and let the reader reach it themselves. Overall, the tone was clearly promotional rather than informative.

The basic question to answer is "what about [insert subject here] makes it noteworthy to people other than its employees, customers, and investors?" Presumably a company sells something to its customers, and we may assume for the moment that they are all ecstatically happy with their purchases, which they consider vastly superior to any competitor's. That, it itself, is not notable. What else? Given that, you have the basis for an article. The subject can be Nefsis, Joe's pizza parlor, or General Electric.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I did try to write the article subjectively but clearly fielded and admit i was guilty of using buzzwords (although this wasn't an attempt of Wiki spam) and peacock language, I now see the errors of my ways. Would I be allowed to add Nefsis to the comparison table Comparison_of_web_conferencing_software along with a stub article at nefsis?

Orphaned non-free image File:Wiredred Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wiredred Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Nefsis_logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Nefsis_logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]