User talk:Eugene450

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! You posted at my talk page to ask about a resubmission of an article about SmartBear Software. You posted your proposed article there, and I have moved it to a your private user space so that we can discuss it. You can find it at User:Eugene450/SmartBear Software. Let's discuss it here on your talk page. I'll take a look and make some comments. Thanks for working on this. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Okay, sounds great. Looking forward to your comments. - Eugene450 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that you have expanded it from the deleted article. You have added Overview and History and Founding sections. You've trimmed the puffery in the Products section; good, because that was a complaint at the Articles for deletion discussion. You've added a huge number of references, and that will be the key question: Are they independent, reliable sources and are they actually talking about the company? Let me work on that question a little and then I'll get back to you. Actually I am about to go out, so I'll check back with you later today.

Also, I see that you work for the company. Thank you for saying that up front. Please read Wikipedia's policy on editing with a conflict of interest. It's not forbidden, as long as you disclose it, which you have done. You do have to take extra care to be neutral, and I will weigh in on that issue when I have more time. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I tried to do was look at the reasons the page was deleted, and look at other similar companies' wikipedia pages. Regarding the resources: I made sure to read up on what count as reliable sources and yes, they are independent, reliable sources, and talk about SmartBear and SmartBear products. Please let me know if any of the sources don't qualify as reliable.

I've read about the COI, and decided being upfront about it is the best way to go. I paid a lot of attention to making this as factual & neutral as possible, and I hope I succeeded! If not, please let me know what to edit when you get a chance. Thanks for your time - much appreciated! - Eugene450 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the article

OK, finally got some time to look at this, sorry for the delay. Some thoughts. First, you have some text, like History and founding, and some independent references, so that's good. And you have trimmed the products listing down to a table, that helps, although the "learn more" column in the table still sounds promotional. I appreciate that you were just trying to cite independent sources for each product and needed a place to put them. I'll have to give that some more thought. It might be better to describe the products in prose paragraphs with their references. It might also be best to focus on a few major products rather than trying to list everything the company does. I'll get back to you on how to handle the products.

There are some technical things that need fixing before it is ready to be an article. Those can be fixed and I'll tell you how. That will still leave the question of whether the company meets the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I am not able to make that judgment. You would just have to put the article in the encyclopedia and see what happens. I can give you some tips. For one, this may sound funny, but 60 references may be too many. Overwhelming the article with references makes the article look weaker, not stronger. Don't list routine local awards like "SD Times 100 Top 10"; that just looks like grasping at straws; people want to see NOTABLE awards, or else don't bother with awards at all. Don't use weird sources like "beverly.wickedlocal". One of the problems with the references is that I really don't see any MAINSTREAM coverage about the company. Being mentioned in the San Diego Times a lot - a local publication dedicated to software development - may not do much for notability. But that's decision for others to make. First let's get the article in the best shape we can.

About the things you can fix: First and most important is to cite the references properly. I did one of them, the #3 reference to the San Diego Times, to show you how it's done. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Here's the easiest way, the way I do references: at the top of the edit window you will see a bunch of buttons and icons. Click on "cite". It will offer you choices such as "news" or "web". Choose one and fill in the blanks: URL, title, date, source, etc. Then put your cursor in the appropriate place in the article and click "add citation". That's important! If you don't click "add citation" the information will be lost and you'll have to do it again. Before going to all that work, trim out the excess sources, the ones that you decide aren't really adding much to the article. I would suggest you trim the 60 references down to your 30 or so best references, focusing on the most mainstream and independent publications.

Another thing about references: don't put them in the middle of the sentence so that every word has its own citation. General Wikipedia style is to put all the references at the end of the sentence.

About the organization of the article:

The list of information at the top can't be done that way. If you're going to list that kind of information it has to be in an infobox, or in the prose text, or else leave it out. (See other articles about computer companies to see what I mean.) You can find a standard infobox format at Template:Infobox company; try the short version.

The first thing in the article is a lead section. The lead section doesn't have a name or heading; it's a general summary of the article. It usually doesn't contain any references. It summarizes things that will be expanded on, with references, later in the article. Your first sentence is an excellent lead sentence. The lead section could also mention when the company was founded and where it is headquartered.It should not list products.

Next should be History. Your history section is OK.

Next you can have an Overview or Company organization section, which mentions locations, key people, etc.

Next could be products, and I am coming around to the idea that you should get rid of the table (Wikipedia isn't fond of tables) and do several paragraphs, one about each category of product, with a sentence description of each product and a reference. Don't do that yet, I need to think about it more and maybe get another opinion. Same with Awards; I think there are too many and too trivial, but don't delete them just yet. Anyhow, this is enough homework for now! Let me know when you have the references and organization in shape, and we'll talk about what to do next. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, thank you for your comments. I see your point about the references and the awards, so I decided to take out the redundant sources, and also trim the awards down which in turn trimmed down the sources. I have the original version saved on my computer, so I went ahead and edited the article on here. I think you are right about the products, so I rewrote it in paragraph form so you can let me know if that's what you were looking for. I also added the Company Organization section, and shortened the lead section, keeping the first lead sentence the same. I also added the standard infobox, and followed your instructions for the sources - thanks for the helpful, simple explanation by the way! Helped me edit that part rather quickly. Let me know your thoughts about everything and what to do next, and if you think I should add back some more sources to reach that "30" number that you mentioned. Thank you again for your help. - Eugene450 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have done an excellent job of cleaning this up, congratulations. I have made a few tweaks to it. I think you could restore a few of your best references about the products, maybe one per paragraph; people don't like to see whole paragraphs without any reference. Also, when you move it to article space you will need some WP:Categories. They are placed as wikilinks at the very bottom of the page. Take a look at other software manufacture articles to see what categories to add. Typical categories might be: Software companies, companies based in Boston, companies established in 2009, etc. In each case, go take a look at the category before adding it, to see if there is a sub-category that describes it better; you should use the most precise category available. For example there might be American companies established in 2009, or Massachusetts companies, or even Boston companies. You just have to check.

I have added a note to the talk page that should prevent it from being speedy-deleted per WP:G4 (as a recreation of a previously deleted article). But it's possible it might get re-nominated for Articles for deletion, if people still don't think the company meets the notability standard. You have done the best you can to meet that standard, but I can't promise it will be accepted. That's up to the Wikipedia community. --MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN Thank you! Worked hard on this. I am currently re-adding references and finishing up the category box. How do I move to the article space? Thanks for your edits and all your help! - Eugene450 (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the page, choose "move". (It might be on a dropdown menu under "more".) On the dropdown menu under "new title", change "user" to "(article)", and remove " Eugene450/ " from the name so it just says "SmartBear Software". Under "reason" put something like "moving draft to mainspace". Leave the pre-checked option to move the talk page; you will also want to choose the option to watch them both. Check everything carefully, then click "move page"! One more thing: before you do that it would be a good idea (per WP:COI) to put a disclosure on the talk page, saying that you are an employee of the company, you have disclosed this on your user page, and you wrote the article with advice from me. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that somebody disabled your categories. Only actual encyclopedia articles are supposed to have categories. They did that by putting a colon in front of the category name. After you move it to articlespace, just remove the colons to make them go live. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to SmartBear Software. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BSIB

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on BSIB, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of SmartBear Software for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SmartBear Software is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartBear Software (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (I am transferreing this notice here from my talk page, since you were the actual author of the article. I just restored it to your userspace. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

Hi MelanieN, thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. I have added more sources to the page and made a few additional edits. I am curious if you have any recommendations about which aspects of the page need the most attention, and how I should go about improving it? Thank you again for your help. Eugene450 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't, sorry. The Articles for Deletion page is where you need to be asking people what improvements they want to see. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, thanks so much, I've added a comment on the Articles for Deletion page. Please feel free to reach out to me if anything else comes to mind and if you have any more tips on how to improve the page. Thanks again! Eugene450 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Collaborator (software)

The article Collaborator (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of important - fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Collaborator (software)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Collaborator (software), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Collaborator (software)

The article Collaborator (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Collaborator (software) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Collaborator (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collaborator (software) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from TestComplete. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to LoadUI does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Eugene450. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CrossBrowserTesting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CrossBrowserTesting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrossBrowserTesting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Newslinger (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]