User talk:Visitsb

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Toolbar do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Alan Au 07:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note on my talk page. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is having a problem with large numbers of new editors adding links to personal projects and commercial sites, which creates problems with conflict of interest. In addition, it's very difficult to assess the appropriateness of isolated links when added by new users with no editing track record. To help alleviate this problem, I recommend that you make use of the edit summaries and talk pages to better explain why you feel that the inclusion of specific external links makes a contribution to the article. To learn more about this, I recommend you take a look at the Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not articles. Thanks, and happy editing! --Alan Au 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• I totally agree with the information chaos caused by new editors adding links. I do not have a editing track record on Wikipedia since recently either. Wikipedia is a platform to publish user contributed content that other users might find helpful. As a user community, in best of the interests of everyone, the objective of the content should be as neutral as possible, and provide addition to existing content in a completely neutral point of view. The Toolbar page clearly provides information on what a toolbar is, but doesn't provide any information on how to create one (though there are links to prominient third-party toolbars such as Google, Yahoo, or even Wikipedia). Adding information about an open source project that users can use to create a toolbar is a valuable addition to the page. There are other pages on Wikipedia that have a similar pattern linking to open source projects (or even commercial ones). I request addition of my deleted link on Toolbar page as it only adds upon existing information for user's benefit (not authors). Visitsb 07:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be fine if you wanted to write a short section about Open Source Toolbar Projects or Toolbar Creation or something. Mostly, I want to discourage the mere addition of external links without supporting content. Also, it would help if you added a short blurb to the Toolbar talk page as well. Thanks, and happy editing! --Alan Au 18:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of what multiple editors consider advertismenets.

You have inserted on multiple occasions something like the following:

Docs9 lets users having any browser enabled device - desktops, laptops, smartphones, iPhone and iPad - view PPT, and PPTX, ODP files created in Powerpoint 97 through 2013 editions of MS Powerpoint.

onto the pages for multiple office products. I feel like this is an advertiesment for a number of reasons, one you only mention one possible tool (Docs9), two you insert is fairly randomly with no context, three the page you link is clearly and advertisement: "Docs9 goes viral around the world and becomes the world's most popular online collaboration tool".

I believe something along the lines of:

In recent years as mobile phones and tablets have become more popular, numerous third party software developers have created applications that allow users to view office documents on their mobile device.

might be more appropriate. You could probably also list examples including Docs9, but I personally would probably consider that advertisment.

I hope this helps, please respond here as I am now watching this page. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Response from visitsb

Hi, I believe the sentence phrasing could be changed to make it more objective, and neutral. However, I don't consider that advertising especially since no direct links have been placed on main content. I landed across a introduction to VisiTouch on Microsoft_Visio page that mentions VisiTouch alongwith public citations such as below-

VisiTouch lets iPhone and iPad users view VSD, VDX and VSDX files created in 2000 through 2013 editions of MS Visio

I haven't used VisiTouch, but extensively used Docs9 that has a broader Microsoft Office support. I re-used the same reference phrase, added citations and public references, and updated the supported file formats. Below example of insert on Microsoft_Powerpoint-

Docs9 lets users having any browser enabled device - desktops, laptops, smartphones, iPhone and iPad - view PPT, and PPTX, ODP files created in Powerpoint 97 through 2013 editions of MS Powerpoint.

If you suggest, I could keep the same current phrase across, or use the starting line you have suggested. The pages I am placing these are Microsoft_Word, Microsoft_Powerpoint, Microsoft_Excel, Microsoft_Visio, and Microsoft_Project under File Formats section to guide users to other option to view Microsoft Office files.

I would say that that VisiTouch line is also an advertisement, and as such removed it. I gave you my suggestion, but there have been at least two other editors that removed your statements from various pages so I would say that consensus is that your phrasing is an advertisement. If you really want to add that content start a talk page topic about it and see what consensus can be reached. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Visitsb (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks, this is a valid suggestion. I have created a topic on Talk:Microsoft_Visio under Information on 3rd party viewers to discuss more on this.

I also have a question as to why you want Docs9 on the page but have not added OfficeSuite Viewer 7 or Office Documents Viewer? Where does it stop? CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Visitsb (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC) This is quite possible. My impression was to offer choice on non-Microsoft options which offer parallel features for Microsoft documents. One could include Microsoft provided viewers as contributions, but at the moment there is no section to hint that such suggestions are asked for. I have proposed on Talk:Microsoft_Visio to add a section on each such page that will allow additional contributors to put such tools.