Jump to content

Talk:Appirio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comment

[edit]

I am completely at a loss at how to improve this page to meet the requested standards. Help would be most appreciated. Spartovi (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try reading WP:policies and guidelines. Hope that helps! Phearson (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phearson. Thanks again for the feedback. I removed some of the unnecessary award mentions, and a few details which may have been deemed trivial or promotional. I also added our reference in a recent book published. Happy to review again if standards are not met. My goal is to meet the standards of the WikiProject Companies. Thank you. Spartovi (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify "our". Do you work for this company? Phearson (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, from reading your user page, you have stated that you work for this company, which I didn't realize until I read it. I'm sorry, but should not have made this page in the first place due to WP:COI rules. Phearson (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phearson - I was unaware of this rule. How can I remedy the issue without losing the page details? Thank you. Spartovi (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the CSD as the reason given is not a valid reason to delete the article. If this is advertising or perhaps a nn company feel free to update the tag or use a PROD or AfD. ttonyb (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ttonyb - how would I update the tag to be in compliance? Not even sure where the tags are located. Thank you. Spartovi (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I contest with AfD. Regards, Phearson (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spartovi, I'm afraid I very much disagree with Phearson's advice here. Firstly, editing with a conflict of interest is not against rules. It is discouraged and, if done, must be done with care - but you did exactly the right thing in declaring your COI on your userpage and I would encourage you to put that information back. Also, the company awards indicate notability and retaining the information may be beneficial. I see a genuine attempt here to create a neutral article and I think the criticism that has been levelled is inappropriate in this case. However, also be aware that WP:COI is not just about preventing WP:SPAM. As the guidance there says, a Wikipedia article is not something you own; you cannot control the page content and you may not like the way it turns out. If that prospect bothers you, you may be advised to request deletion of the page yourself before anyone else contributes to it - once they do you will not find it easy to remove. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RichardOSmith - I greatly appreciate the feedback, and I would be happy to reinstate my user page as it was previously, I will do that next. I also thought that the company awards were not overly promotional as they were backed up by references, but I was trying to meet the vague guidelines and recommendations I was given. I am absolutely against WP:SPAM, and would like to make sure that this is simply a historical/biographical record. I also actually prefer if the page content being owned by the community, being my first created article I know the content could use the help. Could you please help me remove any of the "proposed for deletion" tags, if appropriate, from the article page? Thanks again to you and Phearson for all the help. Spartovi (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tags on the page serve various purposes. The "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy" one cannot be removed until the discussion ends (usually after 7 days - less if the outcome is overwhelmingly obvious; more if it is initially inconclusive). If the article is kept then the "The topic of this article may not meet the notability guidelines for companies and organizations" tag can be removed immediately - the AfD will have considered notability. The "This article needs additional citations for verification" one is a bit crazy - there is roughly one reference per 30 words; how many more are needed? I'd leave the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" tag in place until some other editors have added to it. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic info - thank you, that clarifies the situation a ton. Spartovi (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question Ttonyb and others - would it be of poor taste for me to contribute to the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Appirio page? I have a few comments I'd like to add, and if appropriate, would obviously like to vote to keep the article, and edit it appropriately to meet any necessary guidelines. Please advise, and thanks again. Spartovi (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they partain to the discussion, yes. Also, you can vote if you like. Sorry to cause such a ruckus. Me just being paranoid I guess. Phearson (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Phearson. Not a ruckus at all... ok, well maybe a slight ruckus.  :) Since inception I've simply been asked to clean up the article and clarify why I added it - that's part the commentary I want to add to the AfD. The process is in place for a reason, and also, combing through some of the other recent business additions to wikipedia helps me understand why the paranoia is there, and why it's a good thing. I'm adding my commentary to the AfD next. Spartovi (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new revision is fantastic

[edit]

I see this article now to be more centered then what it was to begin with. Phearson (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the help and guidance Phearson. I'd love to get the last two tags removed, if appropriate, as I believe the article is also fairly centered and has plenty of 3rd party references. Would it be OK to take those down at this point? I'm happy keeping them up if they need to stay for longer. Thanks again. Spartovi (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the maintenance tags for the reasons given in the edit summary: [1] RichardOSmith (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Appirio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Appirio&oldid=1193977897"