User talk:Dgray xplane

Hi there!

I'm not a frequent contributor but I do edit pages occasionally, usually when something seems inconsistent with my knowledge or research from other sources. By philiosiphy I am an inclusionist.

Ancient history

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 22:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was about my company and I did not start the article -- it has been there since 2004. I recently added a link to my blog, which is highly rated in its field: Technorati ranks it fifth in the category of information design and second in the category of visual thinking. As the founder of the company it seemed appropriate.

The decision to delete the link -- although debatable -- may have merit.

However the proposal to delete the entire article is without merit and should be rescinded. Dgray xplane 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N for the general notability guidelines and WP:CORP for the guidelines specific to companies and corporations. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE's work has been published in Discover Magazine, Time magazine, Business 2.0, and Harper's. XPLANE has also illustrated several books, including "Informal Learning" by Jay Cross (inventor of the term "e-learning" and Network Security Illustrated, published by McGraw Hill. XPLANE diagrams have been also featured in textbooks on e-Commerce.Dgray xplane 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in: Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, Second Edition published by O'Reilly Index: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/infotecture2/inx.html

External references to XPLANE: - Article about XPLANE in the Toronto Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060718.wwise-words0718/BNStory/specialSmallBusiness/home - Contenu blog: XPLANE discussed in relation to comics in business: http://www.contenu.nu/nublog/archive/1008 - Mention in Prentice Hall's guide to e-commerce and e-business: http://www.prenhall.com/ebiz/ch09.html - Hoover's fact sheet on XPLANE: http://www.hoovers.com/xplane/--ID__116806--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml - Article: Searching for Excellence: Highlights from the First 5 Years of Online Journalism XPLANE blog listed as number 44: http://www.jeremycaplan.com/WebJournalism.htm - Founder Dave Gray interviewed in LineZine, an online magazine about innovation in e-learning: http://www.linezine.com/3.1/features/dgkscldf.htm - Podcast interview conducted by J. Wynia: http://www.glasstoobig.com/wordpress/2006/08/10/episode-7-dave-gray-ceo-of-xplane/ - epinions: Listes as one of the "pros" for Business 2.0 magazine: http://www.epinions.com/mags-review-FC5-9A3BCCF-3823AEA9-prod1 - Learning 2006: XPLANE graphics exhibited in a gallery of "exemplary learning graphics": http://www.learning2006.com/gallery/ - Founder Dave Gray interviewed by Sociable Media: http://www.sociablemedia.com/articles_gray.htm - Infoviz article about XPLANE: http://www.infovis.net/printMag.php?num=86&lang=2 - Founder Dave Gray interviewed by Supersize.org: http://chrisbrogan.supersized.org/archives/152-Interview-Dave-Gray,-Founder-and-CEO-of-XPLANE.html - Founder Dave Gray interviewed by Rising Media: http://www.risingmedia.net/st_louis/page120.html

I am making every attempt to make this article meet the Wikipedia criteria and would appreciate suggestions. dgray_xplane Dgray xplane 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is that the article was up since 2004 with no complaints. Then I decided to make a contribution to Wikipedia by adding my blog as a resource and it brought down this rain of hell. I was hoping to make a contribution to Wikipedia by adding some articles on subjects that I have searched for and found nothing; for example, [visual explanations] and [process mapping]. But now I am totally discouraged.

I am glad there are people out there keeping Wikipedia spam-free but the Wikipedia people should know that I count myself as a casualty of "friendly fire" -- shot down by an overzealous soldier protecting his territory. I think when there is legitimate and reasonable disagreement that the benefit of the doubt should go toward inclusion rather than exclusion. dgray_xplane Dgray xplane 00:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xplane

Welcome!

Hello, Dgray xplane, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

May I ask what "rmv pov" means? I am a newbie and a search provided no answers. Thanks in advance. dgray_xplane

Please note that you should comment on my talk page, not on my Userpage. I am fine, however, having this discussion on your talk page instead so I moved the conversation here. I made the comment because I was "removing POV". POV stands for Point of View. All articles on Wikipedia should be written in Neutral Point of View (NPOV). See the policy at WP:NPOV. I specifically removed wording that read, "many of the world's leading companies." That language was a borderline POV statement, but, more importantly, it also read more like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it is appropriate to list what companies may enlist Xplane's services, but not to brag that those companies are "leading companies." You should attemt to err on the side of objectivitiy. Hope this helps. --Strothra 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Strothra, it helps a lot. And sorry for my lapse in protocol. I am learning some difficult lessons this week. Dgray xplane 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, you're new. Although, I would reccomend that you edit on Wikipedia before you create articles. It is preferable that you know the ins-and-outs of Wiki articles and policies before you create. Doing that will make for better quality articles and lessen the chance that they will be put up for deletion. You may also wish to see the Wiki manual of style, WP:STYLE and the guide to citing sources, WP:CITE. Also, to indent your paragraphs when you respond to someone on your talk page, place a colon in front of the first word that you type. The more colons you place, the more your paragraph is indented. --Strothra 00:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article! The article has been there since 2004 and my first contribution was this week. I merely added my blog as a link, thinking it would be useful to anyone searching for XPLANE. Then I tried to address the assertions and that only appeared to fan the flames Dgray xplane 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I just assumed by your username that you had created it - I didn't check the article history. Blogs are ok for an external links sections, but should never be used as references for an article. I don't know how you used your blog, so am not sure why others objected to it. --Strothra 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article has certainly improved as a result. It's much better than it was a week ago. I just hope it doesn't get deleted.

XPLANE

Original request for rationale: Hi Proto, Can you explain your rationale for deleting the XPLANE entry? Every commenter who had demonstrable experience in or knowledge of the field of information design voted to keep the entry. My understanding is that when there is not a clear consensus the article should be retained.

Thanks in advance for your reply. Dgray xplane 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dgray_xplane. The article was deleted as the multiple votes to keep were from people who had not contributed to Wikipedia before (which is always very suspicious); if you believe the deletion was incorrect, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards, Proto::type 15:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do and thanks.

XPLANE

The rationale for deletion, provided by the deleting admin: "The article was deleted as the multiple votes to keep were from people who had not contributed to Wikipedia before (which is always very suspicious)" This is an ad hominem rationale.

Many of these votes to keep came from respected authorities in the field, including a published author people with industry experience ranging from 10 to 20 years. The authorities supplied relevant credentials. Because they had little knowledge or experience with Wikipedia policies and procedures, they were also unprepared to cite Wikipedia policy with the deftness of the Wikipedians.

None of the people voting to delete offered any relevant experience or expertise. Few offered reasoned discussion beyond saying "non-notable" and/or pointing to Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

Given that this is Thanksgiving week in the US and many experts are unavailable, I would request an extension of the discussion period if reinstatement isn't obvious.

The article underwent several revisions in an attempt to address perceived problems. Requests for the accusers to assist in improving the article went unheeded.

The original article and an attempted improvement are both posted at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE Dgray xplane 21:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not posted this to deletion review yet. Simply working on the text.

So where IS the article?

I'm looking over the links here and in the AfD, and I can't find any article text. Was the article in question ever actually written? Maury 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, the article has been deleted by an admin user:proto. I am still trying to determine where deleted articles can be found.

Deleted articles don't really "go" anywhere as far as I am aware. I was under the impression they would still exist in the history logs at a minimum. But all I see on the history there is a single edit by you, which doesn't seem to be anything other than a redirect. BTW, reply here, I see your edits on my watchlist. Maury 01:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently when the admin deleted the article he deleted all the logs as well. So how can I appeal the decision? I don't have a copy of the article. Thank you for your help by the way. I feel like I have been run over by a truck.Dgray xplane 01:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I wish I had better news for you, but to be honest I'm surprised to hear this is even possible! I can't promise to spend a lot of time on this, but let me ask a few of the other long-timers and see what I can find out. I'd be surprised if some trace doesn't still exist. In the meantime, I'd suggest writing up a new version in a text editor and sending it to me. I promise to be a brutal editor... but when the process is complete it is unlikely anyone will object to the result. BTW we're going to have to name it something else, the only reason I tripped across all of this is because I thought the debate was over the famous MacOS (and now Windows as well) flight simulator! Maury 02:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to write up a new version. I'm not sure why we would have to name it something else. Since 2004 there has been an article up referring to XPLANE (http://xplane.com). The flight simulator has a hyphen and XPLANE (no hyphen) is a legally registered trademark as well as a company. I will try to re-create the article. Meanwhile i am waiting for a response from the admin who deleted the article. Thank you so much for your assistance.Dgray xplane 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some edits on the undeleted version before seeing this one. I like the one below much better and recommend only one edit, to combine the second para into the intro. Other than that it seems fine to me, with the exception of the naming issue I noted elsewhere. Basically I think the main "xplain" page needs to be a disambig, there's just too many similar names to avoid confusion, and when faced with this, a disambig is the least of many evils. Maury 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE

Attempt to re-create deleted XPLANE article. People who have an interest in creating a Wikipedia-worthy article on XPLANE are invited to help me make it better.

XPLANE was the first company to offer visual thinking as a service to businesses. Visual thinking is a method for combines practices from comics, information design, group process, and visual language. The premise behind the company's offering is that "a picture is worth a thousand words" -- that people can understand information when it is presented pictorially much faster and more consistently than when it is presented with words alone.

Variations of Group process are used to collect information from various sources (documents, in-person interviews, and group discussions). Techniques from the worlds of comics, caricature and storyboarding are used to turn verbal or textual descriptions into rich pictures, which can be used to convey complex information in visual form.

XPLANE was notable during the dot com bubble for its visual explanations of electronic commerce and internet business models, primarily seen in Business 2.0 magazine. (1)(2)(3) (4)

The company's emergence may have been driven by the following factors:

The proliferation of information on the internet, and the corresponding need to understand more information, more quickly
The need for technology companies to communicate their offerings to buyers in much shorter timeframes and with much greater clarity
The opportunity provided by the internet, which allowed a small company in a single location to work more easily with customers in locations around the world

The company was founded in 1993 by Dave Gray, a journalist and professor of visual communication and now has offices in St. Louis and Portland, OR. The company is privately held and revenues are not disclosed. Clients include Microsoft, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, British Petroleum, Nike, and approximately 30% of the Fortune 500.

Notes:

1. http://money.cnn.com/2000/08/10/cashflow/q_graphics/

2. Metropolis Magazine, 22 Nov. 2000: “Considering all the hoopla about information design, there's a dearth of knowledgeable commentary on the subject both online and off. XPLANE, a small, young, St. Louis-based studio with an established track record for creating fresh and communicative information graphics, is attempting to remedy the situation. The firm specializes in a vivid cartoonlike house style intended to unravel the complex realities of high-tech companies — but they take this stuff seriously. Their site hosts an online posting of links to relevant an informative articles that is updated almost daily. Topics covered in the studio's 'visual thinking' weblog [xBlog] and case studies include GUIs (graphical user interfaces), statistical maps, and discussions of internet protocols and brand strategy.”

3. Yahoo Finance, 4 Oct. 2000: New Project Puts Seattle's Technology Community on the Map | “The first-ever Technology Venture Map will soon be hitting the presses, featuring the Seattle area's leading high-tech companies, venture funding sources, and professional service providers... The Map itself will feature a colorful, graphical representation of the city designed by XPLANE.com, creators of Business 2.0 InfoGraphics...”

4. Business 2.0, 4 Dec. 2000: “Business 2.0, the international, award-winning media brand, has been recognized by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) with awards for editorial excellence ... Both award-winning articles included detailed information graphics by XPLANE, the creator of the magazine's easy-to-understand visual 'XPLANATiONS,' a feature that has established Business 2.0 as a leader in visual content, and sets it apart in a field of crowded New Economy and business titles.”

Draft content follows:

Seeing and thinking are closely related processes1.

1. Yi-fu Tuan, Space and Place, 1977. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. ISBN 0816608083. Also published by Edward Arnold, London in 1979.

Original stub:

XPLANE From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

XPLANE is an American company who consults with other businesses to improve their communications, both internal and external. XPLANE uses visual thinking, information design, and metaphorical illustration to effectively communicate complicated business issues.

XPLANE was founded in 1993 by Dave Gray, an artist, journalist and educator. [edit]

XPLANE

I didn't intend my edit summary to be untowardly curt; I imagined myself to have explained the situation well but apologize for any misunderstanding. I readily appreciate that the XPLANE page previously comprised content apropos of the company (for more on which, see, e.g., my reply to your WP:HD query), but the community—whether rightly or not—has adjudged the company to be non-notable and thus not to merit encyclopedic inclusion. The admin who closed the AfD discussion determined that XPLANE was a worthwhile redirect to X-plane; such determination, to be sure, does not mean that he conflates the two or means to suggest that XPLANE cannot refer to anything other than X-plane but only that XPLANE may, consistent with WP:REDIRECT, be inputted by a user who seeks X-plane. To my mind, this redirect is probably inappropriate because XPLANE is an altogether unlikely mistake for X-plane and because the company styled as the former, though ostensibly non-notable, nevertheless relates to the same general field as the latter, such that some confusion entails. What I suggested in my edit summary, then, was that you pursue an RfD with respect to the XPLANE-->X-plane redirect, the ultimate disposition of which discussion might be the vitiation of the redirect, such that XPLANE would once more be a red link. You, though, have simply been blanking (scilicet, removing all text) the page, which removes the redirect but simply leaves a blank encyclopedia page that serves no purpose at all. Because such blanking is generally disfavored, you will likely once more be reverted in your excision of the redirect, and I recommend that you then undertake an RfD; should you require any help with an RfD, you should of course feel free to write me on my talk page. Joe 07:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANE

As you requested, I have moved the XPLANE article you created (prior to its deletion) to your userspace, at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE.

Please note - do not now put this article back in the main article space (i.e., move it to XPLANE) - I am assuming your good faith in this instance, and assuming that you do, as you say, want to refer to it for the purposes of deletion review. Moving it back at this point, without approval at deletion review, will result in it being redeleted (as per criteria for speedy deletion G4).

Please be aware that all I did was close the deletion debate as I judged fit - administrators are expected to use their judgement, and I have no personal issue with the article (although I do think you, as the founder of the company, should not be creating the article - if it's truly a notable program as you say, someone else will create the article. See Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest). Regards, Proto::type 09:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proto, XPLANE is not a program. Also, I've said this numerous times but it bears repeating: I did NOT write the article. I merely tried to address issues raised when it was noted for deletion in an attempt to save the article.

Oh, additional note - when an article is deleted from Wikipedia, it will not appear in the history - this is why I've undeleted it, and moved it to your user space. You can check the deletion logs (or any logs) for an article (or a user!) at Special:Log. ~

Proto::type 09:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal request

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-21_XPLANE_article_dispute#Discussion. Gzkn 12:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I am not operating as an official mediator in this case...just offering my thoughts on the matter. Gzkn 13:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bit busy at the moment

Hi I'm a bit busy at the moment but will take a look on saturday to see if I can help you with this situation if things are not progressing. If the delete review fails - I suggest building up a new version of the page here (and I'll help you do that) then taking that version forward. --Charlesknight 13:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review request

I had a look over the deletion review, but it does look as though the closing admin acted properly. Most of the "keep" votes were accounts which appeared to have been created specifically to comment on the deletion. The admin closing the discussion can and should discount such votes. Also, do note that blogs, as they undergo no editorial review, are not considered reliable sources.

It does look like the company might be notable, but generally writing on oneself or one's own company is frowned upon. If you can point me to some sources, and the company is indeed notable, I'll assist you in writing the article in a neutral tone. At that time, the closing admin can be contacted regarding recreation, as I doubt if the decision will be overturned. Seraphimblade 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add to previous-you may also wish to request that the previous text of the article be "userfied", that is, added to a subpage of your user page. There's no obligation on anyone's part to do this, but if you're intending to continue work on the article to address concerns that led to deletion, the request is often granted. Seraphimblade 16:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphim, The original article and a revision I'm working on is up at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE. Would appreciate your thoughts/edits. I believe the second article (a bit down on the page) is well-sourced at this point. Dgray xplane 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no!

Arguing the toss about the deletion of an article on your own company is bad enough (per the conflict of interest guidelines) but mass requests on user talk pages to solicit participation is considered spamming and is absolutely not on. This kind of behaviour has, in the past, led to people being shown the door. Please stop! Guy (Help!) 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that Guy. What do you expect me to do? The company is demonstrably notable. It's being given the boot by people who have no knowledge of the field. I'm asking people whose opinions I respect to weigh in on the matter -- both their published opinions on notability and their opinions in the field of information design. This is just common sense to me. Don't people fight for things they believe in at Wikipedia? The article was shot down by people who didn't know what they were talking about. How do I get reasoned discussion on the matter? Guy, did you read the article and are you prepared to judge it on its own merits? Please help me here, this is a plea, not an argument!Dgray xplane 16:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I read the guidelines and responded with what I believe to be a reasonable point. From the definition of guideline: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."Dgray xplane 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you to stop running round like a headless chicken :-)

Seriously, if your company meets the notability guidelines as unambiguously as you say it does, I somehow doubt it would have been deleted, but by common consent the worst people to judge the significance of a subject are those who have a vested interest.

I suggest you go and have a chat with User:Stephen B Streater, he may be able to help you. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC):::: Okay, okay, you made me laugh out loud :). But remember, I didn't write the article and it was there for two years before a high school kid with no knowledge of the field marked it for deletion. And I have eight years experience as a professional journalist (which I admit is certainly NO argument for neutrality or objectivity!) :) I will chat with Stephen.[reply]

Good. Stephen is wise in the ways of Wikipedia. Now, as to the subject, the primary notability criterion is actually drawn from the need to be able to verify the content and its neutrality (WP:V and WP:NPOV) and to establish that the article is not original research. So the criterion is that the company must have been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. No reprints of press releases, no stock reports, but actual genuine analytical coverage of the company and its activities in respectable sources. These are the sources from which the article itself must, in the main, be drawn. We can use the company website for trivial details like the date of foundation or the names of key individuals, but the meat of the content must come from reputable secondary sources. If these are online it is simpler for all, but they do not need to be. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed 18 sources at User:Dgray xplane/XPLANE, some more reputable than others. But they do include the Washington Post and CNN. I could have multiple examples where I was interviewed by third parties, but given that would probably just fan the flames of any conflict of interest argument, I elected to leave them out.Dgray xplane 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I'd rather discuss this here than on the deletion review because it's more of an aside, and I think it would be distracting there. But I do want to discuss the issue of external canvassing. In a field that is relatively small, like information design, it seems that it would be important to solicit opinions or contributions from people who understand the subject. There is a difference from canvassing "votes" and canvassing for reasoned discussion from people who know what they're talking about. I think this is especially true given the five-day period for debate. My understanding is the Wikipedia welcomes contributions from the world at large, and this would seem to be one mechanism for soliciting that. Passion for a subject is usually the reason people would be likely to contribute time and energy to writing an article, or expressing opinions on the matter, don't you think? Wikipedia clearly runs on people's passion. So I post a note on my blog which, yes, brought a couple of fans to the discussion. But my blog is well-read in my little field and it also brought forth some reasoned and credible opinions. Does Wikipedia have any method for soliciting the opinions of experts? For example, if there was a way of finding experts in information design, or even technology media, who were willing to offer an opinion on the article -- like a peer review of sorts -- I think that would have made a difference.Dgray xplane 17:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I think you're missing here is that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (emphasis original). For better or for worse, it doesn't matter whether experts in a field think a company is notable or not: it's whether the company has a visible presence outside that field, and basically any editor is capable of evaluating that. Cheers --Pak21 18:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pak, I don't interpret this the same way you do. The litmust test is verifiable, reliable, published sources. I didn't see that publication outside the field was a requirement. Do you disagree? I'd welcome more conversation about this. Dgray xplane 15:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ad Hominem comments on XPLANE

I read through the XPLANE article you saved in your userspace, and noted the following problems with the article:

It reads too much like an advertisement for the company
It appears to be a conflict of interest, in that you are involved in the company see WP:AUTO
The article at first appeared to fail to assert notability

Note that wikipedia has very specific objective criteria for what makes an article notable and verifiable under such policies and guidelines as WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NN. The opinions of experts in the field, where such opinions ONLY APPEAR HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DISUCSSION are not valid as keep defenses really in AfDs. The "I've heard of it so it must be notable" defense is almost always discounted as a defense, whether or not it comes from experts, regular wikipedia contributors, newbies, or aliens from mars. At issue, it seems, is that most people voting for delete don't really attack or defend the Single Purpose Accounts, they simply note that they feel the article has not met baseline notability threshholds. I don't see this as being an ad hominem issue; except that the fact that the non-wikipedians comments show a lack of understanding of wikipedia's policies, and thus are unable to frame their defenses in a way as to be in line with the policies I cite above.

For what its worth, I think the subject HAS demonstrated notability, but you may be unable to write an article about it; I have read all of your prose, and it is decidedly NOT NPOV; it reads too much like an advert. Several people HAVE offered on your talk page here with recreating this article to be better suited to a wikipedia article; you should seek out their help. Please keep me apprised of how this goes; I will help out where I can if needed... --Jayron 32 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NPOV: Really? Are you referring to the original article, the proposed improvement, or both? The notes from independent sources seemed far more promotional to me than anything I wrote. I am seeking help but I am not getting a lot of offers to help write the article. user:maury suggested that the most recent edit was acceptable.

Seraphimblade above has indicated that if you provide him with sources, he will recreate the article. If he does so, I will review his work and make additional changes as necessary. --Jayron 32 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Dgray xplane 17:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is something you should pay attention to. You may find parts of Wikipedia talk:Editing with a conflict of interest of special interest. WAS 4.250 23:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WAS, Thanks for pointing me to the talk pageQ I have read it with interest and added a few thoughts. Would be interested to hear any additional thoughts you might have, either here or there. I see a dilemma: People with passion for something are most likely to be subjective. They are also the most likely to edit in the first place! Surely, conflicts should ALWAYS be fully disclosed. But strict adherence to a "if you have a conflict, don't write" policy could remove many professionals and practitioners from the conversation, leaving it dominated by academics and hobbyists.Dgray xplane 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions so far (that I am aware of) are the exact opposite of what we want in Wikipedia. Let us assume that is because you are new here. May I recommend that you work with me in making contributions that will be seen as an asset to wikipedia so that you learn by experience and prove by demonstation that you are not here just to toot your own horn?

Don't add links that are not sources to facts in articles.
Cease, for now, any fight about anything at wikipedia while you create credentials in the form of useful factual sourced additions to articles.
Pick an article to help (or create) that you know about and care about; but that you can source without using a reference to something that involves you or your firm and does not promote visualization (which would be indirectly promoting yourself, your vision, your firm). Bias is the real issue here.
Run it by someone before changing/adding the article on this page, my talk page or the article's talk page.
Repeat.
When you have improved wikipedia in a way that everyone agrees is useful; then work with me or others to see to what extent you may edit articles you have a bias and/or COI about. WAS 4.250 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis

Hi Dgray, thanks for your message. Though I'm a bit confused as to why you invited me in particular to the discussion on your company's article? In any case, I am always pleased to meet other Wikipedians in St. Louis, as I am in St. Charles, myself. I do have quite a bit of experience with the Wikipedia culture, and would be happy to help bring you up to speed on its nuances.

As I'm sure you've seen, there are some rather strong feelings on Wikipedia about COI, "Conflict of Interest." I've run into this quite a bit, since I have a certain amount of notability myself, and, through no effort of my own, am related to several famous people. ;)

It's very common on Wikipedia for an article to be instantly nominated for deletion if there's any hint of a COI edit, regardless of whether or not it's a "good" edit. It's just kind of a kneejerk reaction within the Wikipedia social structure. For myself, I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand, I have seen some good and worthy articles put through a meatgrinder. On the other though, there are far more articles (hundreds per week, sometimes hundreds per day) which I do completely support the deletion of, since they are obvious spam. For example, I routinely see silly things like owners of used car lots coming in and creating an article about their "company", and then they go and add links to their article from every other car-related article on Wikipedia, as a way of drumming up business. We also have a steady stream of spam articles coming in about makeup, restaurants, porn stars, and then a whole 'nother subset of "junk" articles that are created by children and teenagers, who think it's funny to make articles about their schoolmates (some polite, some not-so-polite).

Because of all the non-encyclopedic stuff streaming in, there are many Wikipedians who spend hours each day doing nothing but deleting spam. Often they don't take the time to read the entire article, they just do some "spot-check" scans, like reading the first paragraph, and then checking to see if the article has any decent references. In other words, they're not doing research to see if a subject is famous, they're only checking to see if the article is making a strong case for it. If the article doesn't, then it's very likely to be nominated for deletion. If the article has been edited by someone involved with the company that it's about, that triples the chances for deletion. And if that company-involved person seems to have done little else on Wikipedia except work on their own article, then that's pretty much a slam-dunk delete.

In other words, some Wikipedians are no-doubt looking at the "contribution history" on your account (click on the top menu bar, "My contributions," to see. To see another user's contrib history, just put their name into the URL). If you had a history of working on other subjects around Wikipedia, you'd have more "street-cred", but your contribution history implies that your account is here for pretty much one purpose and one purpose only, which is to use Wikipedia to promote your company. Regardless of whether or not that's true, it is what the perception is, which makes for a very steep uphill battle.

Now, I still have no opinion myself on whether or not your company's article is worth keeping, but I did want to explain a bit about the process. If you'd like, I'll be happy to look into things in more detail. It might also be useful to get together in St. Louis for lunch or something, and then I can help explain more of the Wikipedia culture and answer any other questions you may have. Plus of course you are welcome to ask me things on my talkpage. Best, --Elonka 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, the question of where to answer is a perennial one on Wikipedia. In general, if you want someone's immediate attention, answer on their talk page, so they get the banner. If it's a slower conversation though, where you're willing to wait for them to notice a reply on your own talkpage, it can make sense to keep everything in one location. When in doubt, just answer on both pages, meaning copy/paste your reply to both locations, and then you get the best of both worlds. :) --Elonka 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll answer here in the hope that you're watching. I asked for your opinion because of some views you expressed on a policy page -- I think it may have been notability but I am not sure. Just so you know, I didn't come to Wikipedia to promote my company, I use Wikipedia on a regular basis, but had never contributed until a week ago.

A week or so ago I made my first contribution. IOn a whim, I searched for XPLANE and noted that someone had started an XPLANE entry. I thought that, as founder of the company, my blog would be considered a useful and relevant link -- it's an ongoing discussion of matters that would be directly relevant to anyone learning more on the company. There was already a link to the corporate website, so I added the link to my blog.

The link was rapidly deleted and then the entire article was listed for deletion by the same person. I won't bore you with the long story, but I then took it as an action item to at the very least try to ensure that some article was retained. If the company was notable before I arrived, why should it be less so because I tried to contribute? The article was marked as a stub, and the language as I read it was asking for people's help in improving the article.

So for the past week I have had a rapid education on Wikipedia's policies and practices, as well as noting some differences between official culture/policy and actual culture/policy.

During that time I have noted several areas where I think I could contribute to Wikipedia. Currently I am trying to decide whether it's a community I want to join or not. Whether the XPLANE article is retained or deleted isn't especially relevant to that decision. It's more about "Is this a culture I want to be a part of?" I'm leaning toward "yes" at the moment.

On the subject of advertising, if I wanted to promote my company, the XPLANE page would probably be the last place to do it! Nobody would be likely to find it on Wikipedia unless they already knew it existed. At least that's my assessment.

It's true that I've not made contributions to other articles -- I don't want to get them deleted! But if you look at my contribs you'll see that I have taken a pretty vocal role in the policy discussions. If you review my contributions there I hope you consider them thoughtful and relevant. Cheers, Dgray xplane 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I WILL add that a person's contributions are exactly that, contributions. I have a bunch of opinions on this which we can discuss if you like, including:

- I believe conflict of interest is about disclosure, not excluding onesself from the conversation. If Bill Gates has a contribution to make to the Microsoft page, it should be welcomed, as long as he fully discloses his interest and follows the same rules as everyone else.
- I believe that previous contributions should be recognized and rewarded where possible. I also believe that a track record should be recognized and weight assigned duly. This could be because their track record shows fairness, or bias, or anything else. I submit that my track record shows that I am a newbie, that I am vocal and passionate, but also that I am willing to learn and take constructive criticism.
- Probably more than you wanted to hear but there it is! :) Would love to hear your thoughts.Dgray xplane 19:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we're singing the same song, I'm just a few verses further along. :) If you'd like to know what some of the later verses sound like, see the summary at [1], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elonka Dunin (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka. ;) Personally, I hope you do decide to join the community, as I think you'll find it very rewarding, once you get away from the COI stuff. As for making contributions to other articles, as long as they're non-COI contributions, I don't think you need to worry about them being deleted. My guess is that the only reason your edit drew attention to XPLANE, is because there's a certain "stack" principle on Wikipedia, where articles that haven't been edited for awhile, kind of sink to the bottom and get forgotten. But then as soon as a new edit takes place, no matter how minor, it pops the article back up to the top of the stack, where the spam-patrol may (and evidently did) spot it. They generally have their sights set on Special:Recentchanges. BTW, if you'd like to chat via instant messenger, I'm routinely on AIM and Google Talk ("Elonka"), so feel free to ping me. There's also a pretty active community in IRC. --Elonka 23:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest bit

I'd noted your previous questions regarding conflict of interest etc. Personally, I tend to agree with what you said-so long as a person discloses that there might be a potential conflict, so that other editors can evaluate the possibility, I've got no issues with that (and actually WP:COI doesn't forbid the practice, it just cautions that when one is editing an article on h(im|er)self or one's own company, disclosures should be made and caution should be exercised.) In practice, though, those who patrol recent changes and new pages sometimes do make decisions at high speed-this is somewhat necessary, you wouldn't believe the flood of spamming, vandalism, and just plain crap you see that way sometimes! Unfortunately, sometimes this catches an "exception to the rule"-but that's why we've got procedures in place to deal with such an occurrence. You seem quite receptive to help, and I believe you were acting in good faith and got caught in the crosshairs due to a lot of people that came before you and weren't. It all gets sorted eventually though. :) Seraphimblade 19:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is becoming a monopoly so I should have the right to promote here

"Wikipedia is becoming a monopoly so I should have the right to promote here" is not what you say on your user page; but it is what I hear. Wikipedia in no way has a monopoly on dialog so no one has a legal or moral right to use it as a soapbox or a yellow pages. Please read up on the free culture movement, on the GFDL, and on forking to see just how off base the term "monopoly" is with regard to this free as in freedom encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I must say you definitely heard me wrong. That's not what I was saying at all. I'll say it explicitly: I don't believe anyone has the right to use Wikipedia as a soapbox or yellow pages.

I'll read your recommended stuff though. I'd also be interested in hearing any thoughts you have about what responsibility Wikipedia might have toward the larger community (i.e., the community outside Wikipedia.Dgray xplane 00:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing up my misunderstanding of your writings. Our responsibility is to create the (1)best (neutral, multilanguage, complete, uncensored) (2)free (as in freedom mostly but also no cost as much as possible) (3)encyclopedia (like Britannica but bigger) we can consistent with (4)staying legal (copyright, privacy, defamation) and (5)available resources (we are all volunteers). WAS 4.250 05:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in 100% agreement. I look forward to contibuting to making Wikipedia a better place :) Dgray xplane 07:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation case

I believe you have been pursuaded to stop your mediation case. As a mediator, I have read your request. Actually, any dispute is allowed to come to the "Medcabal". Your blog cannot be posted, but the fact of if it is notable or not can come to the Mediation Cabal. Since on "appeal" it can go to the Arbitration Committee (like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia), it most certainly can be dealt with. The causes for deletion are a major issue here in Wikipedia. I would like to know, with this new information, may I mediate your case? Wiki eZach| talk 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Is there something I should do to formally withdraw the request?Dgray xplane 00:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. I will close it for you. Wiki eZach| talk 15:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I do agree that we should collaborate rather than debate. Wiki eZach| talk 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user page messages

Hey, I commented on the XPLANE thing, but you should write messages on peoples' talk page next time (you wrote on my user page). There should be a 'talk' link on the top of someones user page that you can go to. You're lucky I found your comment on my user page - I don't check it very often. Fresheneesz 08:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry. I am still learning and Wikipedia is a big place with a lot of rules. Thanks for being patient with me.--Dgray xplane 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPLANATiONS

I'd like to include an XPLANATiON as an illustration in XPLANE (company). However, all of your XPLANATiONs are copyrighted and not licenced under the GFDL, and, because they haven't been the subject of any analysis or commentary, cannot be incorporated here under a fair use rationale. I've had the idea that perhaps you could create an special XPLANATiON, pro bono publico, that you licence under the GFDL. (Licencing it for use in Wikipedia is no good, for the reasons given at Wikipedia:Fair use#Downstream use. It has to be GFDL or public domain.) I've had an idea for a 3-pane XPLANATiON of some of the Wikipedia policies. This would kill two birds with one stone, since it could also be used to illustrate the policies themselves, as well as the encyclopaedia article. Please let me know if you are interested and I'll supply details. Uncle G 13:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SineBot. I thought I have been doing that. Did I forget to do it somewhere?

You forgot to do it again or your browser isn't adding the four tildes. :P You can add the four tildes manually via typing them in from your keyboard. Just here to say that I have moved your comments on my talk page to the bottom of my talk page and replied to them. Not sure if you have watch listed my talk page or not, so just letting you know. :-P--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. I'm an idiot :) Dgray xplane (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]