Talk:Multiplicity (software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article should be deleted for the same reasons as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MaxiVista —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merithb (talk • contribs)

I disagree. Multiplicity has multiple non-trivial third-party reviews, satisfying WP:CORP. (To be fair to the above poster, I just added these to the article, but they are really not really that hard to find.) Competing products are also mentioned - quite favourably, as it happens. GreenReaper 05:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted as user GreenReaper is belonging to Stardocks, thus violation of WP:COI and WP:CORP is indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merithb (talk • contribs)

What evidence do you have for this accusation? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly true that I work for Stardock; this has been brought up recently in relation to this article, and is noted on my user page. WP:COI is a guideline intended to avoid the inclusion of non-notable, non-neutral information in Wikipedia. I don't see my contributions as being a problem unless they result in an article that fails to follow NPOV. If you think this is one of them, I would welcome your suggestions for improvements to this article.

As for notability, you are right to cite WP:CORP, but I fail to see how it is being violated. As mentioned above, the product has had multiple instances of independent coverage. Multiplicity is also the lead product of our ThinkDesk suite, fulfilling the "important product of a notable company" backup clause in WP:SOFTWARE, a current notability criteria proposal. GreenReaper 04:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Bad link deleted JudyJohn 23:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The website seems to have been down for a few days. I've restored the reference now it's back up again. GreenReaper 19:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CineMassive Link

GreenReaper deleted my link to cinemassive displays, spuriously alleging that it was "spam". I am new to the wikiworld so I do appologize if my yet to be groomed actions appear insensitive to the principles of wikipedia. I have no interest in derailing, distorting or blemishing the integrity of wikipedia. In fact, it was my enthusiasm for this medium's coherent plasticity, coupled with my recent discovery of cinemassive displays that encouraged me to participate and share an idea that piqued my interest with this community. I added them to the article because they resell multiplicity and have developed a novel and perhaps innovative use for the software which readers interested in the concept of multiplicity should find quite stimulating. They don't have a profile page on wikipedia, so it seems the only way to share this information is through an external link. When else could an external link be considered more appropriate? Mephistoswaltz 07:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, external links should be added only when the is directly relevant to the specific topic of the article, and not to some other more specific topic (in that case, you should put it on that article, if anywhere). This particular link was inserted on four other pages at the same time - I left it on the first, as it seemed at least pertinent to the topic of the article, but I felt it had insufficient relevance to the other topics to justify being on their pages. I called the other links spam because I believe them to be equivalent to those links that might be placed through hopes of corporate gain, even if that was not your intent. If you wish to add to Wikipedia, you are welcome to start an article about CineMassive, preferably filled with representative information written about the product by other people in published reviews which you reference, like this article. An external link would be quite appropriate there. GreenReaper 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing to see how this blatant advertisement is still kept online

These forces put by certain admins to keep this blatant and completely irrelevant software ad listing is amazing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.9.238.131 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I previously contacted you asking you to specify what portions of the article you believed were not neutral when you placed the advert tag on the page. You did not respond. Would you like to do so here instead? GreenReaper 18:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that your IP is in Germany, the location of MaxiVista's company. If you happen to associated with this company and are concerned that the article about your product has been deleted, I would ask that you consider writing a new, better article that addresses the concerns noted in the AfD rather than going around trying to get pages about similar programs deleted in order to make a point. There is plenty of room on Wikipedia for everyone, you just need to satisfy the appropriate verifiability policies; the best way to do that is probably by using third-party reviews and other reliable sources as references when writing the article. Ideally, every single fact and opinon in the article should be attributed to such a source. There are other reasons for an article to be deleted, and I cannot guarantee that it would not be deleted again, but at least you would know that it wasn't for being unverifiable. GreenReaper 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to suspect a company by suspecting a whole country with 80 Million people. Hilarious91.9.238.7 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So far, I haven't seen anyone else from Germany editing here, and you've not denied it. Am I wrong? GreenReaper 20:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparantely, you are completely wrong. Is it latest fashion to suspect everybody as an affiliate of any other company if one just have a different opinion? Shall I claim everybody as a Multiplicity employee who has a US IP address? I hope you see the ridiculousness here.91.9.212.68 17:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You should certainly suspect those from the US that edit this article, since it was mostly written by a Stardock employee. Indeed, you should suspect any article edits with a potential corporate interest. Assume bad faith. My suspicions were and are due to the fact that you haven't given any specifics about what you felt was wrong, but instead blamed "admins" for keeping what is, as far as I can see, a perfectly reasonable article. Again, I invite you to make your concerns specific. If you can't say what's wrong with it, neither you nor anyone else can fix it. GreenReaper 23:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)