Talk:General Patent Corporation International
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PinchasC,
My edits were perfectly legitimate, and I think it would have been better to start discussing them here than potentially start a reversion war... if we went down that path you would hit 3RR before I would anyway.
It makes no sense (other than to pad the apparent length of the article) to list the same subsidiaries and links in 3 different places: the infobox, the "affiliates and subsidiaries" section" and again in the External links section.
All the other external links I deleted are legitimate deletions as well. I am sure you know well that wikipedia articles are not supposed to be lists of links; almost all of these are already listed in the "in the media" part of GPCI's website, and they don't add ANY significant information about the topic of this article.
I am going to re-add the notices along the top, as the point is to get more editors involved, which should not be a bad thing. I ask that we avoid any ownership issues here, since you've created and added pretty much all the content of this page, as well as any residual feelings you may have about the Paul Lerner deletion. If they are poorly added, other editors will come along and remove them in due time. I really think it is bad form for you (as the creator and primary author of the article) to delete them, as it creates the appearance of wanting to hide the defects in the article.
Emcee (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the links to the subsidiaries as they are in the infobox. I have left the link to the main site as this is its main site.
- There is a template for too many or inappropriate external links called Template:Too many links or Template:External links. If you feel that those links do not belong there, you can add that to attract the attention of other editors. The four that you placed on the top have nothing to do with that. If there are other concerns which justify those four templates, feel free to detail them.
- The links to stories about the belong here, per WP:EL "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
from "Points to Remember":
- Links should be restricted to the most relevant and helpful. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not by itself a reason to add external links.
- External links should typically not be in the body of an article. Include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox.
- Avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website unless there is good reason to do so.
As you can see, #2 made those subsidiary links extraneous. #3 -- avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website -- like www.patentclaim.com? I"m allowing the company's website under "GPCI" in the external links, but of the "in the media" links, half of them are also from patentclaim.com/Media. That's not OK. Curious readers can browse GPCI's site; this article should not be a mirror for the purpose of GPCI PR.
from "Links to Avoid": 14. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.
The article's subject is GPCI (agreed?)
- the IEEE article only mentions GPCI in passing.
- IAM magazine has only a couple of paragraphs featuring talking-head quotes from Poltorak, and nothing about GPCI in particular, other than: "General Patent Corporation, which represents independent inventors and smaller patent owners."
- CFO magazine: the only mention of GPCI is "Indeed, roughly 2,700 patent lawsuits were filed in 2002, more than double the filings a decade ago, according to intellectual-property-management consulting firm General Patent Corp."
- NYT: OK
- EETimes: again, a couple of talking head quotes by Poltorak about the Festo ruling; nothing related to GPCI other than "General Patent Corp., an intellectual-property management firm based in Suffern, N.Y."
- Cnnfn: Poltorak talking about basic patent law, not about his company (other than a brief introduction saying what GPCI is).
- Wall Street Reporter interviews: paid-PR pieces with little new info about GPCI
As for justifying the notices at the top of the page (not that I have to, in order to add them):
- citecheck -- I'm asking editors to check the accuracy and relevance of your citations -- as I already found one wrong, and there are over 30 citations for about a paragraph and a half of actual content, again, many of them from non-reliable sources like patentclaim.com.
- self-published -- see above
- advert -- I believe this is a quite reasonable concerns based on my reading of the article and the links that have been added
- POV-check -- again, asking for more editors to eliminate the POV bias.
I'm adding them again; note that they generally say "may contain" -- please stop removing these from the article, or we will have to go to mediation very soon. If there is no substance to them, they will eventually be removed by other editors, and do no harm as they are not permanent.
