User talk:Rbrim

Hi!

There's a level of notability which needs to be met; article about businesses tend to be scrutinized. Please don't be discouraged. You'll find that help is abundant for new and sincere users like yourself. I checked the deleted contributions log for your account, but I can't find the deletion. What was the name of the article and was it created under this account?--PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDriver1061,

Is this where I respond to you or do I go back where I created my first memo?? I am really confused as to how to contact you and follow the conversation. Sorry, I am an extreme newbie. It seems this might be the logical location to answer, but it seems wrong to change your memo content.

The article was submitted as user "scanplan". I am only communicating through through the RBrim login because I had to go to my boss for help. I could not find the right place to communicate as scanplan. When I looked at the deletion log for scanplan I couldn't find a reference to the content being deleted and I was terribly confused. I think I spent about an hour and a half trying to figure out how to contact you and my manager came over and helped me to find you at his login.

I don't know what I would call the name of the article, I tried to create the address of ManagePro, with the intent to reference the existence of Performance Solutions Technology, LLC and the project management software called ManagePro and MProLite.

Does that give you enough information to clarify where the deleted contributions log might be?

By the way, thank you for your reassurance that you can try to help If I keep trying. Now I feel I might succeed, I need that ... I admit I was pretty discouraged.

Am I communicating at the right place?

Rbrim (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time.

 :}
   Dave

You bet. You can communicate here or you can do so on another user's talk page. Since nothing here is ever really deleted, all I had to do was to go back to the title and review the deleted versions. One of the perks of being an administrator. :)

In reviewing the article, it wasn't really blatant advertising so much as it was unsourced and unreferenced. There are many software titles out there, so notability now becomes an issue. The best way to do that is through third-party references, much the way you did in the last paragraph. No need to quote the page; let the wiki software do it for you with inline references. In the edit mode, you'll notice a small toolbar atop the page. The key on the far right allows you to insert links to external articles. Simply paste the address between the "refs," skip a space after the address and add a bit of text if you wish. At the bottom of the page, type {{reflinks}} which will automatically create a menu of the links you added.

One thing I highly recommend in a situation such as this is to create a user subpage like so: User:Rbrim/ManagePro or User:Scanplan/ManagePro. Clicking on either of those links opens a page off the main article space which will allow you to shape and expand the article without fear of deletion; I pasted your original text to both. When you're done, paste the text back to ManagePro. It's up to you which of the two of you wishes to edit the article.

If you ever have trouble navigating the site, go to Wikipedia:Help desk.

I sure hope this helps. Please don't hesitate to contact me again if you need a hand. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061,

Thank you for your response. Let me confirm that I understand what you mean by unsourced and unreferenced. Are you simply saying that I should go out on the web, find folks that reference our product and list them as satisfied customers or something like that? Maybe reference we have lawyers, accountants, IRS agents and others using the software and show links to their reference that we are used? In other words the 4 references to Fortune, PCMag, Aberdeen and OSCPA are not enough? We need to add more links not just massage the placement of words. Change our existing reference list from 4 references to much more?

Management thinks you simply mean I need to massage the order of the words ... somehow that is not what I am seeing in your words. Management thinks a simple massage like the following is what you want:

 ' described as "MBA-ware, or management software" (1)'

to the statement

 ' described as "MBA-ware, or management software" (1) by Fortune Magazine'

Is this what you want or more just more links.

I need to get confirmation from you that I need to spend time gathering more links before they want to authorize my spending time doing that sort of thing.

Thanks for your time

  Dave

Rbrim (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to go through quite that much hassle. If you can link to the Fortune mention or any other online mentions, that ought to do the trick. Go ya one better: I'll take a look at your subpages when I have a few more minutes to do so. When I do, I'll try and find any and all online references to the product and I'll format them in accordingly. We'll work through this together, don't you worry. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061,

Thank you extremely. I am sorry I have been so much trouble, and I really do appreciate all the incredible help you have offered.

Thanks again, Dave

PMDrive1061,

Have I updated RBRIM/ManagePro in a manner that will be acceptable if I add the ManagePro page back in? I have added more references.

Management is pushing me to do something with the page, so, I made an attempt at changing the content. Dave

Please tell "management" very firmly that: Wikipedia does not accept advertising and that anyone with a COI is very strongly discouraged from writing. Tell "management" to stop trying to force an article in. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Scanplan (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Hi, Dave. In this case, RHaworth may be correct. The fact is, you shouldn't be forced to contribute and if your employer is doing so, it's unfair to you and a violation of this site's rules, not to mention its spirit. If the Scanplan account is blocked an he's using you as a proxy editor, that's against the rules as well. I appreciate your turning to me for help, but there isn't much I can offer at this time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having multiple users on one account isn't exactly according to Hoyle. Normally, it's one person, one account. Did we talk about doing the article on a user subpage? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; there are a couple of subpages. I don't get it; there seems to be enough notability to make the cut. I'll leave word on the admin's noticeboard and I'll get another opinion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061,

Thank you for re-checking for me. We at ManagePro are sorry for the apparent confusion. We felt that using one account was the appropriate way to do the job to be up front. We did not want to be accused of doing the exact the same thing that I think we are being accused of by RHaworth, and that is why we have used one account for this activity.

We felt if there were two accounts editting the same site at the same time you would feel there was one person using 2 accounts or some shady activity was going on with two people to attempt to sneak something in or fraudulantly try to convince you that ManagePro was that popular. We could have used 2 or 3 accounts, editing all over, but, we felt that would be bad task and that this was simply a single logical person attempting to give ManagePro a presence. I could be wrong, but, I think, the only reason you identify there are two people typing through this account is because I have been up front and mentioned it in my very first posting after using scanplan once. If it has been mentioned that I should not use this account, I would have gone back to using the scanplan login, then I think you would have a complaint about scanplan being a puppet. It was not mentioned that I should not share this account and this simply made sense to us to do this in this manner. Now, this account is the only way I can track the status of this situation and I feel compelled to use the account because my account has been blocked and the company CEO does not have time to keep track of this (and this is his account).

By the way, for the record, I am not being forced to enter content, I believe that ManagePro's existence in the list that I have mentioned in past posts only seems reasonable to me. My only problem is my lack of familiarity with adding things to Wikipedia.

With 'scanplan' removed as an offender of some condition, this actually says to me that I should not attempt to add things to wikipedia. It was used once in a manner that was not intended to conceal or offend anyone and it, and I have been deamed an enemy of the site because I wanted to not do something that might deam me an enemy of the site. I loose in this situation, and it is actually quite funny in some perverse way.

I would have liked to continued to use scanplan to create my own personal comments on non-company related topics ... I was (in fact) hoping to use this experience to make me familiar with wikipedia and add content in other area that I feel comfortable commenting on with no bias. I am not certain whether this says never bother trying or not. It certainly isn't the welcome I would have liked to have received from Wikipedia.

However, I would like to thank you, PMDriver1061, for all of your efforts. I appreciate your time, energy and patiences with me in the past. If this memo seems as a complain to you, it is not, it is simply my ramblings in an attempt to state my case and thank you for your time and effort.

)

Dave Rbrim (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the hassle, Dave. This was just one of those odd circumstances where nothing seemed to go right. I would encourage you to contribute in other ways despite all of this. Thanks for you nice words. PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had a chance to look at it, but I will in a moment. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looks good! It'll need to be categorized, but OK otherwise. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061,

I am wondering if I have been trying to contact you in the wrong way. Perhaps I am suppose to contact you through this posting area rather than going to your posting area.

Last April, our post at Managepro was removed by RHaworth. You reviewed the article and indicated you did not see why the article had been deleted. You indicated that you felt the article was good and you were going to have another person review it to confirm. Then, you indicated that the article was "Wow, looks good!". You indicated that the article should be recategorized and restored to the net. Then, you left for the last days of April. Since you returned in May, you have not responded to my posts. Please let me know what is wrong. Have I offended you in some way? Is the article acceptable? Can you help me get the article reclassified? What do I need to do to get the article to be reclassified? PLEASE answer, even if it is only to tell me to leave you alone.

:{

    Dave
Rbrim (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]