Talk:EComXpo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Exact figures needed

I am looking for the exact attendee and both numbers for the 4th show. Also the attendee numbers for the first 3 shows seem to be rounded. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability - Advert - References

  • Notability: Tell me that an industry specific tradeshow and expo with over 8,000 attendees is not notable. Give me a break. Please try to be unbiased and realistic. Also see this page. It's a google search for "ecomxpo", excluding the domain "ecomxpo.com" from the results. Also the leading companies in the space disagree on the notion that eComXpo is not noteworthy and not only attend the conference, but also have booths and send their executive officers (including CEO's) to be a keynote speaker.
  • Advert: what facts about the tradeshow are exaggerated? Please sepecify. If a list of facts can be interpreted positive than it is not an advert as per Wikipedia. If you dislike it, is irrelevant.

I hope that the editor who was quick with plastering the article with templates will take the time to go over this arguments and comment on each of them with constructive and opjective responses. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Quote User:Calton: "restore tags - the world is full of trade shows -- what makes this special? -- this reads like nothing more than a brochure, and the references are a joke. Other than that, no problem" See[1].

This is a major tradeshow of the affiliate marketing industry. Only because you don't like tradeshows does not mean that they are not noteworthy. I will not go into the discussion about tradeshows with you, because I don't know your professional background to know where to start.

"reads like nothing more than a brochure" This is not the same as an advertisement. A brochure stating facts would even be perfect to cite from for Wikipedia. All the hard work already done. What Wikipedia is not the place for sales copy which makes over the top claims and uses exaggerations.

The references are to some extend a bit week, except for one. I agree on that. I am still looking for good reverences that are relevant in the context of the Wikipedia article and not about who is going to the show or about how the show was. However, the references were used to backup the statements about the attendees, something that always comes from the event organizer himself. I did not want to add stuff like microsoft announcing their participation in the event with a booth and stuff like that to show that even industry giants such as MS consider the tradeshow important enough to have a presence there. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a major tradeshow of the affiliate marketing industry. Only because you don't like tradeshows does not mean that they are not noteworthy.

The second assertion is pure projection on your part and the first fall under "Because I said so". Actual multiple reliable sources is what is actually required for the latter -- and self-references and press releases don't even come close.
As I stated before, are the press releases used as reference for the attendee figures and nothing else. And you are wrong regarding press releases. You obviously don't know what a press release actually is. It is always self-referenced, because businesses issue press releases about themselves and what they did and do. Press releases are for the press to be used for their articles. They are often even published as is without any modifications. If I reference to a publication that published the press release, then I would not reference the original source, but a copy. Now the fact that a press release was re-published by somebody you heard about is for many changing the whole thing and makes the release a reference from a reliable source. This is an assumption, which is not necessarily true. High quality publications often (not always) double check at least the validity of the facts stated in the press release. The recent Apple stock scandal demonstrated nicely how poorly this validation is actually done in reality. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same as an advertisement. A brochure stating facts would even be perfect to cite from for Wikipedia

Wrong, especially given the spin as "facts" and not "features": a plain listing of features unencumbered by sourced commentary, analysis, reviews, or real-world impact pretty much makes it a brochure -- and the purpose is of such a brochure is (wait for it) advertising.
Based on your definition are most articles at Wikipedia an "advertisement". The article is a stub and requires more references, true, I admited that and never claimed otherwise. The article is also fairly new and by no means perfect. Notability in context to the subject it is embedded in (affiliate marketing) was in my opinion established. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Try actually dealing with the problems identified by the tags instead of Wikilawyering about why you don't have to. --Calton | Talk 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I am actually trying to do. You are long enough an editor yourself that Wikilawyering should actually not be necessary. I added some links to some discussions about a much bigger issue when it comes to verifyability and references for articles to the subject of internet marketing in general. Some adjustments to some of the related Wikipedia guidelines were a result of that.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

8,0000+ attendees for a conference that is for a internet marketing niche audience, making it the industries largest event is not notable or important? What do people that actually work in that industry think about it? Lets see:

Just to mention a few. Notability as per WP:N is established. Keep in mind that notable should not be confused with "famous" or "popular". Notable is more like to understand as "importance", importance within the subject it is about and not from a global or national (e.g. United States) perspective. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - hangon

As I stated already here. This is no repost of a previous article. And I don't agree that this article qualifies for speedy deletion and also not for a normal deletion IMO. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Washington Post

I found this article [2] in the Washington Post if anyone is interested. If you are looking for more sources, you need to find someone with a LexisNexis subscription account, I'm sure there are more out there. Burntsauce 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The link worked just fine. What's funny though is that it is the same article as the one posted by MSNBC. But the writer is not from eComXpo, nor is it a press release. The article was written by Amanda C. Kooser of Entrepreneur.com. She must have sold it to both papers. Journalism in action, just as I stated in the AfD. Thanks man. I updated the reference in the article to point out that the one source was actually published by two major publications. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed COI

The author revealed in the AfD that he has a conflict of interest. Although he admits no remuneration, he does admit a professional relationship with the sector, speaking with officials from the company regarding Wikipedia, and having participated in an eComXpo event as a panelist. Be advised. Thanks! --Cerejota 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not "revealed" a conflict of interest during the AfD, read it again. I am a blogger, that is considered press in the internet marketing industry. I have business dealings with hundreds of people and companies. I also have years of experience in internet marketing and related technical subjects and asked for my opinion and advice. The COI with eComXpo is as much of a COI for me as with any other affiliate marketing and search marketing conference and with any major business in the industry, including most affiliate networks and virtually all search engines. What is wrong with you? Are you unhappy that the AfD does not go the way you wanted it? Did you ran out of reasonable arguments and decided to go on a "campaign" based on wrong assumptions? What was that stupid placement of the COI template on my talk page? My talk page and parts of my talk archive are full with COI discussions with other editors and Wiki admins in general. If you are looking for COI, look at my user page. I list and flagged all the articles where I made edits and actually COI applies to public. From my bio, which can be found there as well, did I make it clear and transparent where I do have conflicts and where I do not. Gee.. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a misreading of COI. If you are a journalist specialized in this field, even a hobbyist one, you have a COI. COI is not necessarily a bad thing, and I do appreciate how forthcoming you are with the matter. Please do not accuse me of misusing tags, as I have clearly not misused it. Furthermore, your comments are a failure to assume good faith. This is not personal, this is defending the project from becoming a business directory, which it is not. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have an interest in the subject, that is not the same as a Conflict of Interest. Conflict of Interest has to do with bias and the inability to comply with the guideline of neutral point of view. There is so much stuff going on in the industries that are of interest for me, from a writers point of view as well as general interest in the dynamics of those things. I don't consider a lot of the stuff notable and worth the time to spend on to craft a good article for Wikipedia. I don't as much as you that Wikipedia is getting degraded to a business directory where every little blimp of a company has an article. That is what sites like Business.com, the Yahoo! Directory or the Yellowpages are for. I don't have even the time to spend on articles about subjects that don't matter. None of us is being paid for the time we spent at Wikipedia. I also don't get any other benefit out of it, except bad words from my own peers and mistrust from editors here. All in all does it result in more time spent for free on things that have nothing to do with the content in Wikipedia. Why am I doing it anyway? Because I think that it is a good thing and useful to people. Not everything useful and good should have a price tag attached to it and prevent access to it by people who can't pay for it. That may sounds like a conflict of interest to you, hearing it from the mouth of somebody who calls himself a marketer, but the funny thing is, that it actually isn't. I simply have a different attitude towards things than many others. I also have the habit to be straight forward, some call it blunt, but I prefer things spoken out and on the table to be able to tackle the issues effectively. So yes, I assumed good faith during the discussion and was honest, forthcoming, consensus seeking and trusted your ability to be reasonable. The faith suffered severely when you started to turn away from the debate to go on a campaign that was off topic and to be blunt again, just wrong. You might want to take a step back and look at the things that happened from a 10 miles from above perspective. Once you did that, we might be able to discuss things again with the possibility to come to a consensus that satisfies both of us and any other involved editor as well. Before we know it, we might be able to get a good article out of it in return, maybe even featured article, who knows. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You misread WP:COI. You have a professional interest in the field, even if you do not have a direct financial COI, would have a COI. However, you admit to being a panelist in one of their conference, and to be affiliated to InXpo: at the very least you have an interest (hence conflict of) in this conference being viewed in a good light, as your CV cannot bear the weight of having participated in a conference of dunces.
1. I am not affiliated with InXpo in any way, you mix something up here.
2. I have been a lot of things in many not notable events, hence it would be irrelevant for my CV. Its as relevant as putting my ASCII art talents in a CV as marketer. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Although you reverted it, you engaged precisely in one of the practices barred by COI: "citing oneself". In all my time in wikipedia I haven't met a more clear cut case. You can definitely edit wikipedia neutrally and engage in all things, however, other editors must be alerted as to your COI. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:COI, there is an important distinction between an personal interest and a business (or political, etc.) interest. The first is generally acceptable, because it does not inherently conflict with Wikipedia's interest, hence it is not a COI. I have a personal interest in database programming, and I have written articles on the subject, but that does not prevent me from editing, say, the mySQL article. Cumbrowski listing his own page as a reference might be a COI (though not necessarily), but other than that I see no reasonable grounds for declaring a COI. I'm removing the COI tag to avoid misleading readers into believing that the article is substantially biased, which is essentially what the tag does. — xDanielx T/C 07:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference here. Roy participated as a panelist in an eComXpo, which means he probably has the interest (hence conflict of) this being held as notable. He can now say "panelist in pioneering web exposition". It must be noted that he used his own personal website as source at one point. The COI is clearly established. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. Can you link me to wherever it is you're getting such information? More importantly, can you show that Roy's contributions were so substantial that the article as a whole could possibly be considered "biased"? Even after you've deleted 75% of the article's contents? Thanks — xDanielx T/C 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Daniel: He refers to this AfD discussion (second "keep", last two comments), more information about what I did exactly here. I just came back from another tradeshow and saw this... As stated earlier, I did not receive payment or any other compensation for it. I got 3 coupons that granted access to recorded presentations, which I gave all away for free to newbie's in affiliate marketing for educational purposes. I was not ask by eComXpo to participate in the panel (for the 4th event), nor did I asked for any "speaker slot" at the conference. The host of the panel asked me to do it, because of my technical background. You will notice, that my short presentation prior the main discussion is about technology used for communication with affiliate partners. The link in the article itself was a link to my personal blog (a post from April 2006 after the 3rd event of the show), which has nothing to do with my business and resides on a non-commercial domain, which serves the purpose of providing information about ASCII/ANSI text art and related subjects, as well as for the preservation of this old form of art (in computer terms) and the educate people (especially the younger generation today, who did not experience this time period) about this IMO important part of computer history. If you look at my userpage, you will find that I am contributing to a number of articles that are related to that subject and that I also created a number of articles as well. If this is considered COI, 99%+ of all Wikipedia articles are COI. I don't know any Wikipedians who only create or expand articles to subjects they don't know nothing about or have zero interest whatsoever in. AfD's are the only exception to my knowledge, but I am talking about the creation and expansion of articles and not the removal, which would lead to an empty Wiki. As I stated on this talk page to editor Cerejota already. I find his behavior very disrupting and his argumentations fundamentally flawed. Once he was proven wrong in detail with undeniable evidence, he heads off to start another attack from somewhere else. I am unable to assume any good faith anymore. All I see is a editor who wants to get this article deleted at all cost for reasons that are beyond me. I am starting to believe that there must be a strong personal or professional interest on his part, to explain the means and the extend of his actions. He does not disclose his identity (only that he supposedly speaks 7 languages and is located somewhere in the northern hemisphere, which he claims never to have left yet) nor what his relationship to the subject is, so I could only guess, what I don't, because I do not have any evidence to backup any allegations (other than his visible actions at Wikipedia) against him. I see that he removes everything from the article that would not be considered vandalism with a 100% consensus to get as close to a deletion as he can and to criple the article to an extend that the tags he added to the page make up more content than the article itself. He also removed important information that were referenced and information, which can only be provided from the primary source (exact # of attendees). I will not restore this content nor place a vandalism warning on Cerejota's talk page due to his COI allegations against me. I will seek help who will be able to determine, if his claim is justified and if his actions are considered vandalism or not. There was already a debate with an almost unanimous consensus, excluding Cerejota and user Calton (who might would adjust his opinion, because of the references that were brought forward after his initial vote). I tried everything to come to a consensius with this editor, but unfortunately without success. I never experienced that before. What are the possible options for this case? If you have any suggestions Daniel, please let me know. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I contacted another editor and an admin who are both actively involved with the COI policy here at Wikipedia to determine if WP:COI applies to this case or not. I also asked for advice and help to find answers to the question, how to resolve the other obvious problems at hand and to determine, if the actions of User:Cerejota are in violation with Wikipedia guidelines and policies (such as vandalism) or not. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the recording from the panel [3]. Thanks for making me looking it up, because I forgot to refer to it from the page on my website that is actually RELATED to the subject of affiliate marketing (among other subjects).--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining things for me. I'm not sure how best to resolve this, but in light of recent editing activity I'm convinced that this is not an issue me and you could easily resolve with Cerejota, at least not without false compromise. I hope that third parties will be able to mediate the conflict. — xDanielx T/C 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I notified editor User:Jehochman and administrator User:Durova and asked for help to resolve this. I know that they both are involved in projects related to WP:COI problems and know better than I do what the appropriate steps in this case are. I am not sure if the COI notice board is the right place, but we will find out. I appreciate your efforts to help making the article to eComXpo a better article. I have not bumped into each other before. Are you interested in the subject of internet marketing and working on the content in Wikipedia about that subject? If you want to do something productive, have a look at the article to affiliate marketing. It was already reviewed by several editors and is almost a candidate to become a good article. It failed only because of some minor improvements in language that were needed. Others and me fixed already all the other things that were pointed out. A number of editors who are not involved in the subject looked already over it and tweaked it, but the more editors checked it, the better. The tone could also be tweaked, although I didn't know what to change anymore (I did a few obvious ones). Its a controversial subject and the article is full of positive and negative things, which should not be exaggerated nor diminished. Well, you can see for yourself. The content of the article was already scrutinized multiple times. The amount of talk pages to the article speak for themselves. Some people are full of hatred and bias towards the subject so a good article that represents the reality and not myths is a good thing for everybody. the article to search engine optimization was already improved to the status of featured article. I helped with that article too. We try to improve on the overall content to the broad subject of internet marketing, which is increasing in significance every year. We try to improve the content to the subject in quantity and quality at the same time and hope to be able get more articles up to the status of featured article over time. Along the way will be have half the industry that is talked about against us and half of Wikipedia. This seems to be the point when we know that the article is properly written and has a neutral point of view. :) Thanks for your contributions and sorry for this mess. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The article looks fairly good already IMO, but I'll take a closer look when I get time. (I'm no expert, but I understand the essentials.) Thanks for the suggestion. — xDanielx T/C 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

restored tags

{{notability}} {{advert}}

They where unexplainably removed after Calton put them. The article doesn't establish secondary sources notability as per WP:CORP, ad it read like an advert, probably due to the OR nature. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

removed unsourced OR

"Target audience" section is not verified according to secondary sources. It is original research or WP:SYNTH from primary sources. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Two assertions are made using only self-published primary sources, with no verifiability by secondary sources. These statement must be fixed or removed. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

removal of tags

Please do not remove tags without discussion. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There were discussions already and consensus was reached, except with you. You probably wanted to say "Please do not remove tags without ME agreeing to it.". See my comments further above. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing some tags

I'm removing the following tags:

  • Conflict of interest. See the COI discussion above for my explanation.
  • Notability. The well-attended AfD reached a fairly strong consensus supporting the notability of the article. Furthermore, the tag is meant for articles where notability has not been sufficiently examined; a notice that "a minority of editors considers this non-notable" really adds no value to the article.
  • Advertisement. It's normal for an article about a service to describe the features of that service, which is precisely what the article does. "This article says good things about the subject" really doesn't justify the tag. If there's a particular phrase or two that anyone feels is especially promotional, I'm sure it can be fixed by copyediting in roughly the same time that it takes to add a tag.
  • Neutrality/factual accuracy. Again, there's no clear WP:NPOV violation which might merit an obtrusive template. "The . . . factual accuracy of this article are disputed" is misleading, since the the concerns voiced regarded the sourcing of certain claims rather than the truth of those claims (keeping in mind that a negative proof does not work as a factual dispute). The sourcing concerns are also redundant, since there's already another tag for that.

Evidently I'm not the first person to disagree with many of the tags which were hastily thrown on. Please do not reinsert these tags before consulting the community for a consensus. Thanks — xDanielx T/C 08:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

    • COI - see above also.
    • Notability - the majority of the interventions amounted to repeats of "has lots of sources". That is not enough. The fact is the notability is being disputed (DRV hasn't closed, besides the community can err and consensus can change), and furthermore, I continue to raise the issue of the sources being reliable. There are exactly two notable sources, one of which is an obvious press release republication, so their reliability for notability is very tenuous. There is no verifiability and verifiability is what makes something notable. Can't have one without the other.
    • Advertisement - The parent company of eComXpo is not notable itself (a sign of shady notability in itself), so this article is only about the product. However, there are a number of unverified claims (the bulk not only unverified, but un-sourced altogether!!!) about the product that read like an advertisement. For example, the mention that it runs on the ASP platform by inXpo, or attendance figures for "events". If our only source is a primary source, unverified, and published by the same company, thats a textbook definition of an advertisement in wikipedia. I have tagged the specifics with {{fact}}.
    • Neutrality is hard to gauge, but in this case it includes, significantly, no mention of competitors and, if there are notable, wikilinks to them (for example, see Colgate-Palmolive - which mentions Procter & Gamble). However, factual accuracy is easy: there is no verification for claims made, no verification, means suspicion of factual accuracy. Period. Fix those citation tags, with verified sources, not unverified claims from press releases or related corporate websites, and perhaps the article might gain quality.
I tagged these because these are the major issues. There is also WP:SYNTH problems, for example the use of the MSNBC article's general focus on the industry to make specific claims about the product. But these are minor which can be resolved by editing.
Now, I resent your claim that they are hastily put in: they have been explained at length. You can disagree, and we can debate, but until the specific issues remain, I have no reason to remove the tags, and they are placed with much forethought to address specific issues of content. The way to remove the tags is to resolve these issue, not to remove the tags. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I have fixed the article to the point I could remove some of the tags in good conscience. The COI tag remains, as is the notability and unverified. Thanks! --Cerejota 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

xDanielx's Take a Step Back Proposal

In five and a half days, the article was cut from this to this. I don't mean to get into ad hominems, but for context it should be noted that the removal of content was almost exclusively done by Cerejota in the past 5-6 days. The edits in this time have essentially consisted of content removal and minor revert wars. Some sections of the article were deleted without warning (though with brief justifications). Some bits of information which were given {{Fact}} tags, but they enjoyed grace periods of just a small number of days, very short for such a low-traffic article. I have not been able to keep up with Cerejota's aggressive pruning, and not many others have been around. In an effort to remedy the (what I consider) damage, I propose the following procedure:

  • Restore to this version.
  • Replace the old templates with the four current ones (by default; subject to change as agreed).
  • Reinsert a reasonable quantity of {{Fact}} tags and similar tags, without tagging trivial claims or otherwise being excessively rigorous. Leave in place for reasonable grace period, keeping in mind that this is a low-traffic article and more {{Fact}} tags means that editors have less time to find references.
  • In the immediate future, challenge references on the talk page, except for cases of WP:SNOW. (Essentially, don't be excessively bold with controversially removing references.)

The purpose of this proposal is essentially consensus seeking / dispute resolution. There has been some borderline edit warring in these last 5-6 days, and I'm hoping to put an end to it -- hence the reason I'm not simply restoring what I think is appropriate. — xDanielx T/C 10:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I explained the edit, and I disagree in has been on a period of 5-6 days. It was last night that I did substantial edits. Your misrepresentation is clear. It should be noted that indeed this is ad-hominem: instead of engaging in serious debate, you are pronouncing the matter un-resolvable. For example, my last edit was in response to your concerns as to tagging: I reworded the article and removed unreliably sourced and un-sourced material to allow the removal of the tags. I also asked for advise on this topic at WP:CORP. Try addressing my specific concerns, instead of launching what amounts to a personal attack. Thanks! --Cerejota 13:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, removal of most of the material was done per WP:SNOW, it was material that was sourced from press releases, or unsourced. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I made every reasonable attempt to assume good faith and avoid ad hominems. It wasn't easy to keep my summary neutral in tone, given the (in my opinion) radically aggressive nature of your edits, but I think I did a pretty good job. I didn't try to defend every bit of the removed content that I think is appropriate, because as I said I cannot keep up with your aggressive pruning/reverting. I think that would be largely unnecessary, because anyone who compares the current article with a recent old version can plainly see the aggressive pruning without having to look closely at all. A couple of your edits were completely appropriate, and some were debatable, with in all fairness saying that the majority of them qualify as WP:SNOW edits is ludicrous. I'm convinced by your behavior that the only way to resolve this without false compromise is to bring in (randomly selected) third parties who are likely to support a fairly neutral treatment of this article. You have for the most part remained civil, but you seem to have objectionable motivations, whatever they might be. — xDanielx T/C 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I will always agree to mediation if it is proposed in any article I am actively editing, so WP:DR is always cool with me. However, I do not have any objectionable motivation, except that I am a keen defender of sourcing and notability, and of WP:CORP in particular. I do not think wikipedia should become a spam forum for emerging or niche industries seeking wider appeal. I do think that as they emerge and become notable, they should be included. Please do assume good faith. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
By "motivation," I didn't mean to suggest anything illicit -- my apologies if it came out negatively. I just think that the aggressiveness with which you removed contents makes your editing behavior fairly radical - not necessarily malicious or wrong, but extreme. Of course I have views of my own, so it would be improper for me to push them heavily (and also unproductive, as revert wars would likely continue); hence my request for third-party mediation. I didn't expect you to agree with my proposal, and I would have written it very differently if I wasn't making an effort to construct something neutral, but my intention was to devise a reasonable plan that the community as a whole could agree to. — xDanielx T/C 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a thick skin, but ad hominems have been thrown rather injudiciously in total failure of WP:AGF. For example, you admit that you thought I wouldn't agree to mediation. What would give you that impression? I all my editing and talk page I have explained why I have X or Y position, which means my editing is good faith. WP:DR is what good faith editors do when they deeply disagree. What is so special about that? Thanks!--Cerejota 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say (mean) that I didn't expect you to agree to mediation; when I said "I didn't expect you to agree with my proposal" I was referring to my proposal to (in a nutshell) restore deleted content and then discuss the details of what should be included more carefully. I didn't expect you to agree to my suggestion since it involved undoing mostly your edits (at least temporarily) -- I would have made the same assumption with any editor who had strong opinions in favor of the edits s/he was making. It would be dishonest for me to deny any suspicion that, as your were editing this article, your views may have been amplified by something point-related (based on the timing and aggressiveness of your recent edits) -- but I acknowledge that that is nothing more than a suspicion and may be wrong entirely. I'm glad we've been able to keep the discussion fairly civil. — xDanielx T/C 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Response to RfC. The deletions should be restored. However, the article may not meet the standards for notability. I am not sure. However, I do not believe the article should be trimmed. I personally found the information trimmed out to be interesting and helpful in understanding the subject. --Blue Tie 01:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

More appropiate tag

{{company-importance}} is more appropriate than {{notability}} in this case.

I have been searching and I still cannot find secondary source verification of notability, nor any of the sources provide this. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source you preference? Since the regional and nationwide publications that are (and/or were) in the article are not to your pleasing. Your standards are obviously above of those 10 or more editors and administrators who considered the information that were all referenced and/or validated in the case of primary sources to be sufficient to establish notability over and over again. I have not checked, which references were removed after the notability was established in the AfD debate and if the context is still making sense. I noticed that content that was referenced is now missing in the article. For example did you add a "citation needed" template to the now unreferenced fact that the platform used for the conference is the virtual conferencing ASP solution by a company with the name inXpo. The reference was pointing to the provider who stated that they do in fact provide a solution like the one described in the article and that eComXpo is one of their clients who's conference they host on their servers (hence the name ASP solution, where ASP stands not for Active Server Pages but Application service provider). The website has some contact information where you can write or call them or even stop by their physical company location to verify that they are indeed providing this solution to eComXpo. There are even more things you can do to verify that their claims are real and that they not created fake offices, contact information, telephone, people, bios etc., in an malicious attempt to game Wikipedia. After your edits, which I actually consider vandalism and also reported as such does the article indeed lack content and seems to make the impression that it does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia. That can be fixed fairly easily, but I refrain from this and leave it up to a neutral party to make up their own mind and take the actions they deem to be appropriate in this case. I also discourage you very strongly from continuing with edits of this article until mediators will join us to resolve this dispute. Simply ignoring this and continue would hardly be considered a sign of willingness to respect a neutral opinion and to come to a consensus. I will also revert any edit from this point forward until the problem was decided upon. Those edits are considered vandalism and a sign of disrespect, not only disrespect of me, but the Wikipedia community as a whole (who established means for how to resolve this in a fair and civilized manner). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI. The Deletion Review was acknowledging the result of the AfD discussion. The endorsement of that decision came from a number of editors again, including editors who where not involved in the dispute until the deletion review. I did not make a vote btw. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This is why I removed the tag[4], which you inexplicably restored[5], while also falsely accusing me of vandalism. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Vandalism

RV Vandalism - See Talk Page why this is considered vandalism

Dear User:Cumbrowski:

Please read this for the actual meaning of "vandalism" (note especially the very first sentence), and try not to be so sloppy in your use of misleading and needlessly inflammatory language. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read my comments at the COI noticeboard here. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

Quote: "...addition, removal, or change of content made..." broken down:

  1. addition - I wish he had
  2. removal - plenty
  3. change - done that too, to justify 2.

Quote: "... deliberate attempt ...", Comment: No doubt about that. His will to do it is hardly possible to overlook

Quote: ".... compromise the integrity of Wikipedia ..." Comment:

  1. article level - dismantling content to get good content removed is not in the interest of Wikipedia
  2. editor level - defame somebody who does not agree to get him out of the way is not a healthy method of maintaining and growing a community
  3. community level - ignoring community decisions and processes that were established to solve this kind of disputes will render those mechanisms useless, if ignorance of them is tolerated or even rewarded. Without those mechanisms would Wikipedia be a uncontrolled places where every single person can do what he likes.

Yes, I consider the acts of the user I referred to as vandalism in the fullest meaning of it. I also consider this form of vandalism a greater threat to the integrity of Wikipedia as for example an uncoordinated blanking of an article by an anonymous person. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As Calton said, please read the first lines of WP:VANDALISM: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
None of my edits do this, and in fact all have been explained to detail, and I even accepted to engage on WP:DR. Furthermore, I am not a new kid on the block but have been editing for over two years, done thousands of edits, and have participated in many, many AfDs and DRVs, including some I have closed. Hell, I have added consensus stuff to policies and guidelines of the community (WP:AGF, WP:BITE, and WP:REVOKE for example). In other words, I am not someone who has a vested interest in compromising the integrity of a project I have devoted many hours of my life to. Your accusation is spurious and you have to WP:CHILL and WP:COOL. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggested to you WP:CHILL and WP:COOL without the Wikipedia talk, which you are obviously very fluent in. I am not that fluent in this language, except for the basics that are coming up frequently, and recommend speaking in a language that can be understood without studying Wikitalk. I am delighted that my suggestions are slowly getting through to you. Unfortunately did since then a number of action take place, I am not okay with and, which I can not simply ignore. I would have appreciated this kind of attitute before your actions after the AfD. I believe that my suggestion to revert the article to it state right after the AfD would be the best for everybody and then talk about the items that were not already covered by the AfD to make the article better and do this while having consensus. What I contribute to an article is nothing that is "edged into stone" (figure of speech). I don't be offended by the simple fact that part of my edits are rewritten, corrected, expanded or even removed in a few rare cases. That was expected, heck even requested by myself in several cases. However, I am offended, if they are done the way you did them. I am not a very resentful person and could forgive you, if you agree to revert back to the point I already mentioned and then take it from there. Would you be willing to do that and also accept decisions by the community you do not agree with and not simply ignore them? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
One of my contributions to WP:BITE has to do precisely with this scenario, Ignorantia juris non excusat doesn't apply to Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is neither a moot court, nor a bureaucracy, and we should avoid instruction creep, I have also failed to escalate this earlier, hoping giving you links to the appropriate policies (and essays which explain opinions on policy), would help you understand what is going on. I am operating under WP:SNOWBALL, which is why I have been aggressive with editing.
However, you seem to imply that the use of "wikitalk" is bad thing. It isn't in your context. If you were a more experienced user, perhaps it could be wikilawyering, however, in your case, were you admit ignorance of the policies and guidelines, and of the culture, it is actually an attempt to educate. If you have been made aware of something, you cannot be ignorant of it, hence you can understand.
In a very critical example, you seem to assume AfD and DRV are validation of existing content. They are not. They are validation of notability and encyclopedic value of the topic. In other words, the community has decided that eComXpo is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedic entry. This cannot be interpreted as a license to violate content policy, or requirements for sourcing, verifiability, and NPOV.
One of the reasons assuming good faith is so important is because it precisely keeps editing disputes such as the one we are engaged in from blowing up. Even if you are seeing red - or some argue specially if you are seeing red - it pays to understand the other side. Thanks! --Cerejota 16:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Read the talk page of the mediation page. I clarified my offer to you. You have now the opportunity to "put your money where your mouth is" (figure of speech). I assume that you are familar with that saying. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

I think we should go to mediation, I am deeply worried about his position, in particular his accusation of vandalism, which is highly uncivil. Due to this type of ad hominem failures to assume good faith, I am requesting formal mediation, rather than informal mediation, because Roy has just, in my opinion, poisoned the well by not addressing the content issues raised directly. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for start reading what other editors suggested for the past few days. You are obviously done with your edits. It does not surprises me that you are very familiar with the technicalities of the Wikipedia mediation process. I wasn't, because it was never necessary during my time at Wikipedia, regardless how heated the debates were. I will update the requested items that require mediation and take it from there. To hear the words about me being "highly uncivil" very cynical. I stated very early on, when you started to neglect any discussions and decisions made by the community that were not in your favor, that I you made it impossible to assume good faith. What you did was not the result of a discussion and no consensus was reached. You used brute force to get what you wanted. You can continue to throw Wikipedia terms and abbreviations at me as long as you want to. Your actions (WHEN you did WHAT and HOW) speak for themselves. Your attempt to ratify them by (ab)using wikipedia guidelines after you ignored a number of them yourself disgusts me. You scorn them by ignoring them first and then using them as a shield after you got what you wanted. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

However, the point of a neutral mediator or mediators is to sort things out. A neutral mediator will not be able to sort this mess out on a weekend. There is a lot of material that needs to looked at. I assume that the edit history of each of us will play a role too. I also have to check the mediation process procedure in more detail and I also would like to ask the mediators who will read this, to explain things in a bit more detail for me and probably Daniel as well, since unlike Cerejota am I not familar with the process. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


BTW, you say I have violated policy. Could you state which, please? Thanks!--Cerejota 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

please refrain from using leading statements like "you say" and similar phrases. Those lead to misunderstandings and escallation of disputes. I did not say that you have violated a policy, because I don't know if there is a policy that covers this. We might be able to find that out, but I hope that this will not become necessary. We won't, if you agree on the offer to take a step back, forget about what happened and start at a point in time before things took a bad turn and escalated. I would prefer that, because it is actually more productive and does not waste precious energy, which could be used to improve Wikipedia content instead. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I question some of the sources used right now as reliable (affiliatetip.com? gimme a break). However, I do think the article right now is pretty good. Since the community feels the topic is notable, and used as argument these sources, I am happy with them.

However, the previous longer version included a lot of primary source material from press releases and such. If secondary sources speak of them, then I have no problem including them.

Other information that was unsourced cannot be included, even if other articles violate WP:RS and include them. You are suggesting that we WP:IAR without providing a reason why we should do so that is compelling: a wikipedia reader that stumbles into this page will come out of reading with a clear understanding as to why this company is notable, and a link to its website which would have further information. Any information added to it should meet our content polices.

Your "peace offer" is really a blackmail to include content that doesn't obey policy, which is the content I removed.

If you remain ignorant of content policies, please read WP:ATT, WP:V, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RS before you continue editing. Feel free to ask neutral editors in those polices talk pages about their opinions an intepretations. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1) AffiliateTip.com is operated by Shawn Collins and quallifies perfectly as WP:RS, since you picked a specific source. Just FYI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
2) I don't understand why my offer would be a blackmail. My offer did not say what the article should include or what it should not. I offered to take a step back to the point in time when the AfD decission was "keep" and before you deleted the majority of content from the article despite the objections and disagreement of multiple other editors without even attempting a discussion to come to a consensus to do it the right way. (This did happen during the deletion review, which is even worse than just doing it under normal circumstances, because you knew that other editors are involved who do not agree with you). After that would we discuss together with other editors the individual sections of the article and come to a consensus regarding what to do with it: Keep it, Delete it or Modify it. This is the recommended approach for editing articles, especially if there are conflicts and different opinions among the editors who edit the article. This should also work, as long as the involved editors assume good faith. You claimed that you do assume good faith. I just took your word for it to demonstrate to you that I am assuming good faith, despite the circumstances. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
3) I was not and are not ignorant of content policies and there is no reason why somebody should believe anything else. Please refraign from attacking me and making one accusation after another. I would not consider you neutral when it comes to the article, but that does not mean that I try to come to a consensus with you as well. Certain information are always coming from a source that is not neutral and can't be 100% verified, but that does not mean that they should be excluded from the article. Using common sense is part of most Wikipedia guidelines that are related to the content of articles. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
4) Quote Cerejota: "You are suggesting that we WP:IAR". You are leading again and putting word in my mouth, which I did not use. I did not even implied what you are saying. If I did, please point me to the sentence where you believe that I suggested this. Thank you.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
5) Please stop WikiLawyering and the misuse of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to game the system.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Roy, I again tell you you gots to chill. I apologize if you take my citing of policy as wikilawerying. That is not my intent, as I have communicated multiple times to you. You have repeatedly said you are ignorant of wikipedia policy, and I simply seek to relieve you of your ignorance. Your hostility is incredible, but we continue to assume good faith... Thanks!--Cerejota 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I ask you again to please point me to the edits where I supposedly said that I am "ignorant of wikipedia policy". I don't understand how you could misinterpret a simple question like that as hostility. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
"since unlike Cerejota am I not familar with the process." in this thread. And thats just one. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What has not knowing of a process, you never had to be part of, to do with ignoring Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines? I never needed mediation before and even said that I was seeking help to find out what to do before you started the official mediation process.. the one I was looking for. Okay, what about the other? That can't be it?! Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

The request for mediation made on 26 August 2007 05:08(UTC) by User:Cerejota was rejected on September 4, 2007 by User:Daniel because User:xDanielx, who was added by Cerejota to the list of involved editors did not agree on a mediation for unknown reasons. Just FYI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was User:Calton, and he was added because he actively participated here and edited the article. User:xDanielx accepted! Thanks!--Cerejota 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Right -- as Cerejota said. I was slightly disappointed that Calton didn't communicate with us regarding the RfM, as it seems he was active at the time. — xDanielx T/C 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but it wouldn't have been a true mediation without him, after all, except for the COI tag, all other tags and discussions were started by him. I would love to hear why he wouldn't accept. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Calton reverted some edits and made a vote for the deletion at the AfD and the DR. That was it (you will see that, if you look at the edit histories). He basically supported you Cerejota, but did not do anything else. Sorry Daniel, my mistake, I appologize for that. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The history shows his participation clearly predates mine. Sorry, but in any case I was supporting him! You continue to try to make this a personal fight, when it isn't. Thanks! --Cerejota 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • ??? The AfD started for a different reason and was started by a different user. There was a brief discussion with him, but that was it. But that is only a technicality. p.s. Quote: "You continue to try to make this a personal fight, when it isn't." You are leading again. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)