User talk:IKnowUthink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Cogent Communications

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for editing the article on Cogent Communications. I'm not sure if you've looked at the pages edit history, but there has recently been extensive discussion over what is included in the article, as well as some persistent defacing of the articel by Cogent themselves. Your edit to the page has been reverted. If you still feel strongly that the Gartner report should be removed from the article please take it up on the article's talk page and form a consensus before altering the article again. —Jnk^[talk] 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the exact edit you made has not been made in the past, but just the negative half of the Gartner report has been removed, and the entire article has been replaced (seemingly in part to remove the negative part of the Gartner report.) Needless to say, there has been disagreement over exactly what to include in this article as well as a significant amount of vandalism. Peronally I have no strong feeling either way about the Gartner report, but due to the history of vandalism by people who have the appearance of working for Cogent Communications I would err on the side of caution when removing anything that includes a less-than-flattering mention of Cogent and can be verified. Some people seem to feel that it legitimately belongs in the article.

As for your question about consensus, please see the article on that topic and the Wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Consensus. Note that in order to maintain the neutral point of view of an article it is generally preferred that anyone with a vested interest in the article's topic (in this case for example, any employee, large shareholder, etc., of Level(3), Cogent, or any other large ISP) should identify themselves as such or recuse themselves from voting (for fear that they may be impartial or biased). —Jnk^[talk] 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, if you feel that the Gartner report should be legitimately removed from the article based on any of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies like WP:NPOV or feel that it is generally un-encyclopedic in nature, then I would strongly encourage you to take it up on the article's talk page. —Jnk^[talk] 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)