Talk:Scriptlogic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I feel like you are unfairly removing legitimate information and links that I am putting on our Wiki site. We are not stating anything that is an advertisement, in fact, we are simply stating facts. Saying, for example, we have 18,000 customers isn't an advertisement, it's fact. Linking to external resources, that are not always our own solution, isn't advertising.

We are big supporters of Wikipedia, in fact, many of our own Knowledge Base articles reference Wikipedia entries, so we appreciate and respect the role that it plays.

We are modeling our entries after companies like Microsoft and Exxon, and I think if you look at their entries, they look more like a promotion than anything. We fully understand that this is not a place to put in links to get reputation, in fact, we're smart enough to know that doesn't work here. With tens of thousands of people downloading our product a month, we know for a fact that many of them come to us after visiting Wikipedia and getting the information they need to proceed.

Please, if we were link spamming, that would be one thing, but clearly we are just trying to provide some valuable information about our technology for those that are seeking answers. Please be even handed in your treatment.

I welcome your response.

Nealbush 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So you weren't external link spamming Wikipedia? What do you call these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] that were added by User talk:65.248.131.254 and these [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] that were added by User_talk:Nealbush? And that is just a small sampling of the external links added by Scriptlogic employees. I am curious what role User_talk:Unormal plays in all this? In fact, Unormal's talk page blanking is what set off this cascade of events. (Requestion 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Help me then

While I certainly disagree with your assessment that a company linking to it's own products on it's own Wiki page is link Spam, I would ask you then to show me an example of how it should be.

But, first, explain to me how, when a person comes to a page for a specific company or topic, and wants to get more information, that giving them a link to that information or product is Spam. Is it because that it is a link to a commercial product rather than just an informational source? If that's the case, then linking a company to 3rd party reviews and awards it may have won should be considered Spam, right? Or, because it's a 3rd party, then it's not self promotion and thus spam, right?

How can it be Spam if they come to the company, it's not the company going out to them.

Second, if someone is naive enough to think that they could improve their link reputation or placement in natural search, then why wouldn't they spray specific keywords throughout their own page. Clearly, that's not the case here. But, rather, an honest attempt to provide people who are legitimately searching for something additional, relevant information.

I would also say that you are not being even handed in your treatment. I would cite specifically, Qwest Software and NetIQ, both companies link to their own products. Again, in my mind, they should be able to do that.

I'm not trying to spark an argument, but rather appeal to your sense of purpose for a tool like Wikipedia. It's a place to provide legitimate information about specific topics for people that are seeking information, not about bombarding them with useless content and solicitations.

Is making a secondary Wiki page for each product the answer? If so, while I personally believe that is worse, if deemed acceptable, then please say so. I see that's how other companies are providing more information about their products. Again, help me and don't be so dictatorial and vindictive.

65.248.131.254 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Making a wiki page for each of your products is not a good solution. My guess is any such pages would be quickly deleted. Why do you need Wikipedia links to each of your products anyway? What purpose does it serve? Wikipedia is not meant to be an advertising medium. (Requestion 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Let me ask then, if someone was searching for legitimate information about a product; you propose that 1. It cannot be a page in Wikipedia, and 2. It cannot be linked from Wikipedia. Are you then indicating a pure exclusion of anything that is a 'product' from Wikipedia? (Unormal 14:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_cola (Unormal 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a product catalog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Coca cola is a notable product. (Requestion 20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Black_Cherry_Vanilla, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Coke, both of which state clearly they are a set of many pages titled 'Varieties of Coca-Cola'; an obvious catalog of products of the Coca-Cola company?... I'm not saying it's unreasonable to have on Wikipedia, but as an encyclopedia, it seems that products as a category in general are either included or not. Is there some sales threshold that defines a notable product? A publication threshold? We can agree that Coca Cola itself has a resonable cultural impact, but diet black cherra vanilla coke?... :)... There's an article here on Wikipedia about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incom_Corporation the fictional corporation that creates X-Wings in Star Wars. On this page is a linked list of 'products' that looks pretty similar to ours. If this article deserves a place in Wikipedia, I have some real questions about why real software is not important enough to include. Obviously the article needs to be neutral POV, obviously you guys do a great job fighting link spam, but the general attack on the article and products themselves are unwarrented in the context, in my opinion. (Unormal 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] NPOV

there is no way that this entry is blatant advertising. I would cite Wikipedia's own policy and I quote:

"Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion"

I no way is this anything but a factual representation.65.248.131.254 16:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing your own deletion tags really does not apply to the above statement you just quoted. The statement refers to the formal AfD process which still might happen. You need to understand that a company creating and editing their own Wikipedia page has major potential WP:COI problems. So I have a couple questions for you. Why is it so important to have a Scriptlogic Wikipedia article? Who is User talk:Unormal? Why did this user create this article? And why is this user so defiant about blanking their talk page? Unormal's actions really make Scriptlogic look bad. (Requestion 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Neal Bush recently improved the advert marketing-speak of the ScriptLogic article but some more work is still needed. I would suggest removing words and statements such as "tremendous growth", "filled a void for", "the need to reduce or eliminate the burden of", "portfolio", "claims to significantly increase the productivity", "a global customer base and network of distribution partners." Those terms sound like they are straight out of your corporate about page. You need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blurb in some financial magazine. (Requestion 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

I took another whack at the article and removed a whole bunch of marketing cruft. More work might still be needed. Should the slogan and "More than 18,000 customers use ScriptLogic solutions to manage approximately 5 million desktops and 100,000 servers." statements be removed? (Requestion 16:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

I would only point out the hypocracy in this ridiculous "whack" that you have done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiq, but these are factual statements and do not merit deletion.Nealbush 15:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy? What are you talking about? I have never edited the Netiq article. (Requestion 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Comments

these are factual statements, not overt advertisements and do not merit removal.Nealbush 15:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

when then is your affiliation with Penton Media? I see you created their Wiki page and they have similar statistics on theirs.Nealbush 16:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Requestion is the person that caught Penton spamming on a massive basis and then documented it. See Talk:Penton Media. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks A.B. I noticed that Neal added a windowsitpro.com Penton Media link. Was that just a coincidence? Neal, if you keep adding link spam then you are going to get blocked. How many times have you violated that final warning? (Requestion 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC))