User talk:Sleepyhead81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi Sleepyhead81, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

  • RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.
  • Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.
  • Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.
  • Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.
  • Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 11:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey! Another Norwegian!

Always nice to get one more guy from the old country into the community of Wikipedians :-)   I'll enter your username into our list. On a slightly more negative note, I notice that you have gotten acquainted with Wikipedia's NPOV policies towards "advertising" the hard way (no insult; one just has to imagine what WKP's articles on commercial entities---services, products, companies---would look like if such policies were not harshly and efficiently enforced...). --Wernher 22:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The new 24SevenOffice logo

Hi, the name of the logo image you uploaded (Image:Logo transp white bg.gif) isn't that great. It doesn't really tell who's logo it is, does it? Could you upload it again with a more meaningful name and then ask for the other ones to be deleted? That would be great. Thanks, --S.K. 17:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for deletion of Centraview

Hello Sleepyhead81. Could you please help me in voting for Keep in the Centraview article? I think all ASP based accounting systems should be allowed to stay.--AAAAA 11:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Can you help with the rewrite of Centraview?--AAAAA 03:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Competitor?

Why do you insinuate that it is because of competatitve reasons that the Ad is being marked for deletion, when advertising is a clear reason for deletion?

Please don't throw around unbiased accusations.

--Zyron 20:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for clearing that up

I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, and your company gave me the idea of making our own. I used the article of your company as a template. But what I fail to understand is how 24SevenOffice is so much different from netSite.

I'm starting to catch the differences now, and I've done some changes already.

For it is all a bit strange. It seems like if a 3rd person, an outsider is writing the article - then there is no problem.

Like if you had written the article in 1st person, you would have gotten "neutrality" problems..

It seems like people care a lot of "neutral" opinions, and such the use of the 1st person viewpoint is cursed.


Now, you touched my curiousity here: How did you connect me with netSite? Recent changes? I'm drawing a blank here...


I believe we have as much right to maintain an informative article about netSite here, as you believe 24SevenOffice has. Needed changes have been done to also enable others to agree on this. If you could please review the site again, and give me feedback on addition changes that should be done, then I would be more than grateful!


Thanks Sleepyhead81! --Zyron 21:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Just wanted to thank you for the feedback, and say sorry for the vfd.

btw, I tested out your product some time back, really good work! We might actually decide to use them as we grow, but the need currently doesn't exist.

You might want to check out this page: http://wikicompany.org/wiki/24SevenOffice

Keep up the good work!

--Zyron 21:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bobbi Brown

The vfd has now been fixed to point to Bobbi Brown instead of Bobby Brown. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 19:30, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Talk Pages and Vandalism

Before accusing me of vandalism again, please read "What Vandalism is Not" section of Wikipedia:Vandalism Your continued harrasment of me and my technology, however, are against wiki policy. Furthurmore, the very technique I am using in my discussion of JAXASS deletion was used by you in your vote for deletion of 247office. I feel your article deserves more of a vote for deletion than mine does and I haven't even touched your article. Mine is a real article about a real technology. Yours is pure advertising -- plain and simple. Sleepnomore 22:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC) talk

[edit] Talk Pages / Vandalism (continued)

In response to your message on my talk, you may feel that this is vandalism, but Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is in contrast to your own. I would suggest you don't mis-use the terminonology again. Secondly, your opinions on what constitutes wide-spread support is not of interest to me, or wikipedia for that matter. This is proved by the mere existence of your company in wikipedia. Without wikipedia, I doubt anyone would know of your application's existence. Your continued spam of several topics with links to your application show an overall agressive advertising campaign that has somehow alluded administrative action. Lastly, you continue to badger the point that JAXASS was coined on wikipedia despite obvious proof that the blog entry was created days before a wikipedia article was written about it. Your harrassment will no longer be tollerated. If you wish to make an accusation, you had better have proof next time. Particularly when it comes to sockpuppet accusations. I have, indeed, made manny comments from many IP addresses (I travel frequeuntly), but I typically attribute those comments to myself. I'll make an effort to go add my sig to any previous unsigned comments I've made, but its fairly obvious in my comments that I refer to myself in one form or another. The intent is clearly not to decieve someone into multiple support. Those who have signed their name as other users are not me. I've made every good-faith effort to follow this process to the best of my ability. I suggest you do the same. Sleepnomore 07:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Your Message - RIA

I understand what you are saying. I know based on our clash over the viability of "JAXASS", you probably think I'm seeking to punish you in some way, but this really is an advertisement. I have seen your link all over Wikipedia. The only advocate of this application seems to be you. You are the only one editing 24SevenOffice. You are the only one adding this application to the links. I felt that if it were that known as a rich internet application, it would have been added by someone other than an employee of the company. Your only claim to fame that seems to have allowed your company to exist in wikipedia appears to be the criteria that you won an award and you have almost 1000 users. I've had code samples of mine that were downloaded 10,000 times and shareware that has been used by nearly 20,000 registered people (it was a free gaming server configuration utility). The point is, I don't consider these things to be notable and yet somehow, you survived a VfD despite everyone but yourself asking for deletion of the topic. You've managed to keep your link around in some sort of stealth mode. You've added your companies advertisement to every topic that seems to come even close to something your application does. I don't even see that with Microsoft Office, so why 24SevenOffice ?

If you think you have justifiable reason to add the links, let me know and if I agree, I promise I wont continue to press the issue. I'm just trying to make sure that Wikipedia is used to document notable applications, not to make something notable. These were the same arguments you used to have JAXASS deleted, so I don't see why they wouldn't apply here. Sleepnomore 10:15, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • You actually didn't provide any proof that 24SevenOffice is a well known company, just a statement. 24SevenOffice may be a well known company in Norway, but it isn't as notable as say, Microsoft Office. Doing a google search for your product reveals a couple thousand links -- which would make the item notable. However, the majority of the links are made from signatures on other forums, blogs, and pages such as wikipedia where you have obviously made a massive marketing compaign. Your article has links and statements about it in several places. I'm not disputing that your article isn't a nice rich internet application -- I'm stating that it isn't notable. Being an employee of the company, I'm sure you are very proud of it. But that just makes it harder for you to see it from a neutral point of view. I've even polled several people from in and around the community asking if they've heard of the application before. No one has. Sleepnomore 10:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • You stated yourself that the application was not well-known. I think that alone speaks to what I'm trying to say here. It just isn't known enough to be listed in Wikipedia. As for the press releases, my company has just as many releases (they aren't all listed on our page, but some of the more relevant ones can be found here: (http://www.tibasolutions.com/index.asp?SiteContentId=15). I know that these releases are generated, in large part, from the company owner and a good publicist -- not neccessarily because the application is good. Another thing to look at is my name. Go look me up on Google. I have over 21,000 hits for my name. Does that make me notable? No. Do you find a lot of press releases and articles about me? Absolutely. Still doesn't make me notable. In the same sense, neither is 24SevenOffice just because you've managed to market yourself to a few newspapers.

[edit] NetSuite Inc

I think the history speaks for itself on this: Edit History For NetSuite

  • Its fairly obvious that you've and he have edited most of the same topics. To me that indicates that he is either a sockpuppet or that you have influenced him to add 24SevenOffice material. One minute, he is adding links to NetSuite to Computer Software, the next he is touting how much better 24SevenOffice is on NetSuite's competitor page. He appears to be a colleague of yours. Sleepnomore 11:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War

I'm not attempting to start a revert war. You were the first to revert the topic after I removed the offending link. I will bring this up in the discussion, but for now, please leave your link out of this. I also intend to put a request for comments on the 24SevenOffice topic. I don't know anything about it and may take you up on your offer to try it out so that I can add relevant information to the article. For now, I'm very busy with other projects that are more pressing for my time, so I'll have to delay that for the time being. Thanks for the offer. Sleepnomore 10:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. We'll keep it and discuss this on the talk page. I ask that you quit making attempts to contact people outside of the discussion to gain support for your cause as you have obviously done in the past. This should be done in a fair manner to keep Wikipedia free of bias and not reduced to a "friends helping friends advertise their products" site. Sleepnomore 11:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NetSuite Marketing / Vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, use the sandbox. - Sleepnomore 16:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism / Marketing of NetSuite

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do any testing here. - Sleepnomore 16:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AJAX' Achilles Heel

OK I admit I'm lazy but please provide a link to the Guidelines you cite. In any event I disagree that my new article is not relevant. Although satirical I believe it to be both NPOV and relevant. If my satire or what you believe to be my POV are also things you object to, please again I hope it is not too much to ask you to provide specific links. In any event I consider the new article to be NPOV because it spares nobody. Its pure satire and almost nothing in it is to be believed, except for the one main point that I would like readers to glean from reading between the lines -- that "degradable AJAX" is nothing other than server-side code and that the AJAX buzz has gotten out of hand. Ironically of course I am admittedly benefitting from that buzz. But I think the screenshot of maps.google.com with Javascript disabled makes my new URL perhaps more relevant, and anyway, by providing a more search-engine friendly URL to my blog I am actually striving to reduce my reliance on the wikipedia for my traffic.

I am going to assume that the above is reasonably persuasive to you, and one last time I am going to revert to my new link. You must have noted that when I reverted the first time I did revise the link a bit to be more descriptive of the additional content. I'm not going to fight it if you revert again. But I would ask instead that you contribute to the discussion on the AJAX talk page regarding removing my link entirely, and I assure you I will abide by whatever consensus is reached there. Jemptymethod 16:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello please tell me how the link to the Ajax' Achilles Heel article does NOT conform to the following before removing it again. Thanks: point #4 from Wikipedia:External links#What_should_be_linked_to ("On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.") Jemptymethod 23:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Replaced link to my own site with one to a Jakob Nielsen article. There goes 70+% of my traffic, but the writing was on the wall ;) Jemptymethod 02:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24SevenOffice Links

These links are marketting and subject to immediate deletion. They need no discussion just as several links you have deleted in the past (based on your history) have been deleted without discussion. The only reason that you are upset that they are deleted without discussion is because they are your own company links. I understand that its hard for you to fathom that your company just isn't relevant to these topics, but I can see it from a neutral standpoint. Its plain to see that your company, while it may have a great product, just is not know.. let alone well known. Therefor your links are subject to immediate deletion under the rules of What_Wikipedia_is_not. - Sleepnomore 20:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24SevenOffice Argument

Your argument and case you made for 24SevenOffice provided proof to me that a credible neutral 3rd party places your product in the same domain as NetSuite. You won't find any more arguments from me for removal. - Sleepnomore 15:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Need a Second for Sleepnomore conduct page

Hey, never talked to you, but I've seen that he's been bugging you too... I need a second to start a conduct page for him. Started it here: [SleepnomoreConduct] Thanks Michael


    • oops... did it wrong...

here: [[1]]

[edit] Ajax / Criticism section rewrite

I wont have time to do a rewrite any time this week. I just got a ton of work dumped on my desk. If you feel like taking a whack at it, feel free. - Sleepnomore 16:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ajax_(programming) Format

I've cleaned up the discussion page at Talk:Ajax_(programming). I'd be interested in what you think about the format. With as much gets said in there, I was thinking it could use a little "order" to the chaos of change requests. Anyway, since you've been around a bit longer on here than me, maybe you could have some insight as to whether this format will work or not. Dunno though. - Sleepnomore 18:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

    • True. enough about the typical way that pages are edited. But we end up with the same discussion on three different portions of the talk page otherwise. We had something like three discussions about the same links on the talk page. It was just really hard to follow. If you don't like it, we can remove the format and go back to the way it was, I just figured this added some structure to the edits. It does get tedious when the sections change, so there are some cons to that approach as well. - Sleepnomore 16:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The never sleeping head

Hello my friend.

I see that you are not making my experience with wikipedia an easy one, and I can't seem to understand why.

Due to a not-so-good written article on netsite, it was entered a vote for deletion. The problems were resolved, and I even asked you for feedback - no further suggestions were given.

And the article was still deleted. Only God understand why.

Seems like only big multicontinental corporations can even have their name mentioned in wikipedia without anyone wanting to delete it.


So I put a lot of work into making a new and better version, that is as objective as it can be, in 3rd person and all that I can think of. But no, seems like the old sins never will let go.

So Sh81, what about doing some independent thinking instead of following "protocol"?

Do you honestly think that the latest version deserved to be deleted?? Do you even care?

Så til slutt lurer jeg på hvorfor jeg skriver på engelsk, men får så være.

State your reasons for undeletion of the article at Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion. As long as the article went through a vote of deletion you cannot create a new article unless it is voted to be undeleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only containt notable and relevant articles. Having an article for all companies in the world is not what Wikipedia is intented for. Whether your company is notable and relevant enough is for other contributors at Wikipedia to judge. --Sleepyhead 07:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ajax (Declarative Programming) VfD

Sleepyhead, I fixed the VfD stuff on the Ajax (Declarative Programming) article; you hadn't used the VfD template to create the VfD subpage, and you didn't link the subpage to the master VfD page. It was easy to fix, but in the future, you really need to follow the directions at the bottom of the Articles for Deletion page to the absolute letter or else the VfD doesn't get put on the master page, meaning that nobody sees it and nobody weighs in. Jason t c 14:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Pellegrino

Hi Sleepyhead81, I replied to your statement given on the San Pellegrino talk page. Hope the information I have provided is useful to you. Crack open a bottle of S. Pellegrino! And celebrate! Heh heh!

[edit] Cougar Mountain Software

So what you are saying is that if I follow the layout for 24SevenOffice, I write it with the same objectivity and facts as used in your page, but mine is not objective and yours is? Sence when does that work? Are you thinking that because Cougar Mountain Software writes accounting software and you write accounting software, it is your job to make sure that no other company that writes accounting software can get an objective page in here? If you want to tell me that it is not objective and not based on facts, then tell me where I am wrong, don't just say it is not objective because that will lead me to assume that if I am not then you are not. If you have a problem tell me what it is don't just flag my article and go.

[edit] Offtopic, but...

What's the recruiting situation like in 24/7 at the moment? Ojw 20:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quit Reverting Links with No Articles

There is nothing wrong with having objects without articles in lists. Just because it doesn't have an article does not mean that something is spam. Lists are made to list things that relate to the topic. There is NO rule that says that the objects have to have articles, so QUIT reverting.Achen00 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It does seem a useful way to manage the constant link spam in software lists -- if something doesn't have a wikipedia article, and is never going to have a wikipedia article, then doesn't it count as "non-notable"? Write a stub for Script #2671, yet another PHP web calendar if it's so interesting! Ojw 20:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Lists are a useful way to introduce Wikipedians to notable things which don't yet have articles. Then Wikipedians will then know there is a need for an article. Toozan Tuk ;-) Stephen B Streater 10:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wpspam invite

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. -- Perfecto 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I believe you are engaged in a promotional compaign for you compagny

Hi I believe, you are engaged in a promotional campaign for you compagny, while this might be a perfectly honorable activity, I don't believe WP is the place for this. I have also noticed that you have even added you compagny prices in the NetSuite article, this clearly advertising for me. I have noticed that you have added a internal links to your entry all over the place and added it to multiple categories. I have nothing personal against you as you are paid to do what you do, but I believe that WP is not the place for such activity. On one side I don't think it brings Encyclopedic content, on the other side if we allow this, all you competitors and the competitors of your competitors and so one will do exactly the same think which will ruin this place. I have added an entry about your compagny in the Wikispam Project to discuss with other people interested in the subject whether you fall into spamming or not. Thanks--Khalid hassani 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] please contact Dothebart 11:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)dothebart

Hy, I don't understand your request for the deletion of my citadel/ux article. I thought that this is the right way to contact you, as it worked that way with ManekiNeko too. Excuse me if i'm wrong here, as I'm new to wikipedia... Let me explain why we did create another wiki page for citadel/ux. We did it actually to display the actual focus it has unbiassed page to show the features and power citadel has as a groupware may provide in comparison to other packages like kolab with that target audience. Most of these audience won't be interrested in the long standing history of bbs'es and may even feel offended by that huge amount of information, as they just want to organize their email and their callendars, not do funky stuff geeks and nerds did way up in the early nineties. I wanted to show that citadel is a compact, fast, and actually stable working groupware solution with far lesser resource consumption than most of the other solutions arround, that would even fit on an embedded server. Please contact us at [2] in the citadel_support room, or me via icq 100708301, freenode #citadel. I'm dothebart there, but you might allso find me under that nick in ircnet, efnet, oftc... Tia, dothebart Dothebart | Talk

Hi, dothebart -- I'm not Sleepyhead81, but I saw your post here. I'm going to reply to it here (sorry Sleepyhead81 -- I didn't want to cut you out of the conversation, though) :) but also make a note on your talk page so you will see this. The problem with your explanation here is that you seem to be saying right up front that you made the Citadel/UX article to promote the software. When you say things like "I wanted to show that citadel is a compact, fast, and actually stable working groupware solution with far lesser resource consumption than most of the other solutions arround" that implies that your Cit/UX article is an ad. This is not going to keep people from wanting to delete it -- quite the opposite, in fact. Please see WP:NOT -- especially the part that says "Wikipedia is not a soapbox", which says "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party

I wonder, why the under 'see allso' listed projects don't get these complaints too.

verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable." The original Citadel/UX article was very much not objective. However, I (and others, IIRC) went over the article to try to make it objective, since I at least do think Citadel/UX has probably reached the threshold of notability on its own (a search for citadel groupware on Google seems to indicate such), and it has broken off from the original

But still Citadel offers this functionality. It has grown beyound this point without stripping of its roots.

Citadels quite strongly. I think the article is much more neutral now, though probably a few edits could still be done to make it more so. Please understand that Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, and that using it as such is going to raise quite a few hackles, and

Ok, Thanks for your help here.It's not easy to see the outside of a house, if you're looking out of the window...

that's the reason for the AfD, I think. Maybe Sleepyhead81 will have a few words to add. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Hi Sleepyhead81 and ManekiNeko, thanks for your input on this subject. As I noted in the AfD, both dothebart and myself are fairly new to Wikipedia, so we appreciate your patience as we come to understand the style of writing that the Wikipedia editors prefer. The article has now been significantly reworked. I tried to make it more objective and unbiased, less promotional, and more descriptive, noting its features only in the context of why this variant of Citadel is a groupware platform rather than a mere BBS. The article is also significantly shorter now, as I have removed anything promotional or superfluous. I hope the new version is more acceptable and that you will consider keeping it online. Art Cancro 14:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ERP companies

I have no problem with you nominating non-notable software companies for deletion, especially since you have some specialist and market knowledge. Please be aware, though, that your motives are open to question, WP:AGF notwithstanding, and if you do not tread carefully you may bring trouble on yourself, e.g. a potential block for vandalism. Stick within the guidelines of WP:CORP and you will be OK, but I strongly urge you to give much more detailed nominations, including for example Google searches, Alexa stats, financial figures etc. - JzG 12:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ERP Companies II

I also think that one should be just a bit careful. As there are a number of companies in the Wikipedia. And they know what they are talking about. And also usually it is all facts and not fiction. And is not meant in a competitive way. They are just putting their information available to the world. And people got to right to inform them as they want to, it is a human right. This is what many people fight for, and there are many SME’s which does a lot for the communities, human rights, research and for their people. And if one simply removes them by not being really sure, it will be a great pity. There is also the fact that many companies got real good partnerships with other big and large ones. Or better to say many large enterprises can thank their smaller partners for their own success. And by pushing the smaller partners out, one is actually discriminating against the big and large enterprises, because they are simply connected. And so one is very quickly just at the start again and was of no help at all. I believe that no one can make any good decisions if they don’t have good information. And it is as easy as just asking the source itself.

[edit] Web 2.0

If the products section is removed, we're going to have lots of attempts to try and add external links to 'example' sites again. I converted it to an internal links format to try and avoid people spamming external links. I'm not going to add it back again, but without it, we'll need to keep a tight control on the spammers. --GraemeL (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why you deleted the article, "Putting Web 2.0 in Perspective." What were your reasons? --Driftreality (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2006 (ET)

[edit] Teenage Wildlife

Hi Sleepyhead81, you've recently voted Teenage wildlife forum for deletion - Verifiable third-party sources that demonstrate its notability have now been added to the External links section. Could you change your vote to keep?

Many Thanks — Fegchanges 07:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] red links have a purpose

Please stop removing red links, especially in lists. Red links indicate articles yet to be written. If you remove red links from lists than lists could be removed altogether since Wikipedia already has categories.--Hhielscher 15:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but lists with red links attracts spam. Why have a list with topics that are not worthy an article? --Sleepyhead 08:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Red links show people that a worthy item doesn't have an article yet. Stephen B Streater 10:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The reason for a red link...

I have put in links in some areas to topics that are not there in the hopes that someone with the knowledge will come along and provide that information. This is especially true for me in medical areas as I know very little about medicine and as I am reading through the pages they look liky they assume the reader understands what the meaning of all of the words in the article mean. You just arbitrarily deciding to remove them leads to the original writer of the article or someone else with the knowledge from providing the information and giving us a better understanding of their area of expertize. If there is another way to get this information added by someone with the knowledge, I have not yet seen it.

[edit] Wiki-work

In response to your comment over at the AfD debate, yes, I recognise that you are doing a lot of good work. I am jaded right now due to a prolific sockpuppet creator and POV pusher, and I guess you can probably see why I was suspicious. Sorry, I accept your assurance it was not you. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop trying to start a revert war

Just figure it out. Just because your listing is an ERP company and my listing is an ERP company doesn't mean you need to constantly vandalize, delete sections, and put up all sorts of notices at the top. Give it a rest. The two companies aren't even direct competitors. Made2Manage is a superior company, but if you want that to change, messing with a wikipedia listing isn't going to do it. Just leave it alone.

Your claim of my vandalism is incorrect. Please refer to the wikipedia guidelines.

Wikipedia is not: - a place to advertise for your company. Please be objective when you write. - a place to put up press releases. They do not belong to the article and I will remove them.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Do not forget that.

Please refer to the guidelines on how to write and style articles.

If you continue to revert the article changes I will contact an administrator to review the article and your contributions at Wikipedia. I have added a request for comment regarding the edits of this article --Sleepyhead 08:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sleepyhead, your claim of bias is incorrect. While your article has biased content, as listed above by various other wiki contributors, mine does not. You are the one and only who has ever defaced or complained about my listing. I am not the one and only that has ever questioned yours. If you feel you need to contact an administrator, go ahead, but you better make sure to edit your listing before he checks it out! --LeaveMeAlone 10:55, 10 March 2006

[edit] Prodding articles

Hi! Could you please include a reason when you propose an article for deletion? It would be helpful to people wishing to improve it, or simply to understand why the article may be inappropriate. It displays in the notice if you enter it {{prod|Insert reasoning here}}. Also, please note in the edit summary when you propose an article for deletion. It makes the page history much more informative and can prevent accidental reprodding later on. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was possible to enter a reason. Thanks for letting me know. --Sleepyhead 11:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Hi there. I noticed you added an AfD tag to the Web 3.0 article. I've speedy deleted the article, based on these criteria. If you find articles that meet one of those criteria, use one of the deletion templates listed on the CSD page. Such articles will be deleted without having to go through AfD. Hope this helps. Mindmatrix 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info. --Sleepyhead 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Another point on speedy deletion: When something needs to be speedied (like Toromat1 Games), please do not list it on AFD. Just put the speedy tag on it, and someone will come along and delete it. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do it the next time. --Sleepyhead 11:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Toromat1 Games article

Hi. I'm a Toromat1 Games fan who wonders why you deleted this article. It is quite useful when you need to find some info about Toromat1 Games. Even thought it was small, it was no reason to delete it. And, I had a look at the deletion article, it said that it was not known in Norway! Bullshit! I am from Norway myself and everyone i know, knows about it! please tell me why you deleted it.

Articles needs to establish notability according to WP:CORP and Toromat1 Games do not. I am from Norway as well and I have never heard of this company. --Sleepyhead 06:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see.

[edit] AJAX Frameworks

Hey I noticed you pulled my AJAX Frameworks thing. I see now I made a couple copy and paste erros when assembling the paragraph. Other than the obvious grammar problems, was there anything else I should be worrying about?

Your help is appreciated.

[edit] Ajax Tutorial

I was wondering way you dislike the AjaxTutorial.net website? I believe you removed the link twice. First time I added a link to the homepage so users could pick which article/tutorial to read. That was not good enough, so I changed it to point directly to a tutorial. You removed it stating it was 'not an article'. It is a tutorial and was listed under Tutorials. Could you please advice why you dislike this site?

Whether I dislike the site or not is not relevant. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm and only the most relevant and important links should be included in articles. --Sleepyhead 07:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FORscene

I removed the speedy tag as this is substantially different from the deleted version. Stephen has provided sources to verify the significance of the product, but if you still feel it falls short you may of course nominate it for deletion via AfD. For the record, I would vote Keep as it has ample evidence of meeting the WP:SOFTWARE guideline. Just zis Guy you know? 11:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been lots of editing since the AfD, including simplifying references and removing summary section as you suggested. People are asking if it still needs the cleanup tag. [3] Are you happy that the article has reached normal level of editing requirements yet? Stephen B Streater 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paper on the SLM challenges posed by RIAs

I see that you deleted the link I had inserted to this paper under Rich Internet Applications, but not the brief summary I had included within the page. You did not explain why, either in the RIA talk page for the article or in my talk page, where I had placed a note about the paper, and a question about the WP protocol for referencing it.

Can you explain your criteria for removing the link? The paper summarizes an important aspect of RIAs that is not addressed well in any of the other links, and should not (imho) be considered spam, since it contains no discussion of any company or product. Its point of view is quite unlike that of the Backbase paper linked immediately above it, for example.

Chris Loosley 19:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legrand Software

I saw that you've prod'ed Legrand Software. It's been prod'ed once already and the creator removed it, so you might consider changing your prod to an {{afd}}. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vertabase Pro

Hi Sleepyhead81, I'm still not clear on changes that you'd recommend to be made to the entry on Vertabase Pro. But, I'm totally open to them. Perhaps you could give me some specific examples from the entry to help guide me. I've made several attempts at addressing editors need but can't seem to hit the nail on the head. Any help is appreciated.

[edit] Removal of example real life implementations from Ajax (programming)

Hi, with reference to your recent edit (removal), I am curious to understand why we cannot have mention of real life examples of AJAX implementation. I am an admirer of AJAX and would like even a non-technical person reading the article to appreciate it completely when they can relate to real world instances. Do you agree? Raanoo 08:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The list will only attract spam and grow too large. --Sleepyhead 09:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for opinion on Ajax Talk page

Hi Sleepyhead. I know you've been a long-time contributor to the Ajax article, and you've been doing a great job keeping the JavaScript external links section clean from spam articles recently. Because of this, I would like to hear your opinion on an issue that has come up on the Ajax talk page, regarding linking to an Ajax tutorial that uses an Ajax library. I have argued my point in the thread, but would like to hear from some other editors, particularly those that have been looking after the article for some time. Thanks. Rufous 13:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Customer relationship management

Hi, Sleepyhead. Apparently we have different opinions about the Customer relationship management article. I have added an external link to an overview article about CRM for nonprofit organizations, written by Paul Hagen. You have deleted that link twice now, calling it "spam." I don't know why you think it is spam. I have explained my reasons for adding it on the talk page of the article. Rather than have a revert war about this, let's discuss it. Why do you think it is spam? --Sheldon Rampton 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of CRM vendors

If you think it has merit you can take it to WP:DRV or ask me, contested WP:PROD deletions, even contested post facto, are an automatic undelete. Once undeleted it would likely be taken to AfD. Do you want to contest the PROD, or are you content with the reasoning (that it was a spam magnet and essentially duplicated the category)? Guy 11:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web operating system

Dear Sleepyhead81, I think I've finally realized a way of making everyone happy.. quite bold, much more so than I ever expected. But I think this is what you're expecting/ comfortable with/ advocating.. merging WebOS with Webtop and Web operating system. - JohnPritchard 03:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop deleting links

Unless you can point to some kind of guideline that indicates that an external link is forbidden in this context, please stop deleting it. Without a link to SmartClient this article is very misleading, as it doesn't mention the most widely deployed commercial Ajax framework. A reader can either follow or not follow an external link; they are clearly labelled.

[edit] Stop deleting links

Can you give me a reason for deleting the link to developerWorks Ajax resource center. I had put it up for discussion but hadnt seen any comments and hence decided to add the link. Once you go through it, you will understand that it is easily one of the best resources on Ajax. - Mehraj

[edit] Why deleting the ASP reference at Ajax Frameworks?

It's a real Ajax Framework and it's one of the few still active for ASP, and therefor relevant to the topic, since there are frameworks listed for every other serverside platform, like PHP, Python, Java, .NET, etc.

--Amikael 00:40, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete AceMoney links and article?

Hi Sleepyhead81! Why did you delete my changes for AceMoney and AceMoney Lite on personal finance software comparison page? Please restore, it's a great program! - Asimanov

[edit] openbravo deletion

dear sleepyhead i know that he article was deleted previosuly. but now i think there is a good reason for it to be created on wikipedia. i would like to reapeat what user jord said here "Sorry folks, but "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: previously deleted" does not sound like a good reason too me since I cannot see the criteria followed to delete the page in the first time (since I did not write it).

I do not see any reason why this page is wrong. Some reasons for keeping this page:

- This page describes a free software/open source project like many other pages at Wikipedia.

- OpenBravo, like Compiere and Adempiere is a free ERP. All of these projects release software regullary, have their communities behind them and are used by many users and are commercially backed. I do not see why Compiere or Adempiere can be in Wikipedia and Openbravo not"

also the reason given for deletion previously was that there were not enough google search results for the same. now there are more than 40,000 results and 63,000 downloads for openbravo.

so please restore the page sms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Siddharthmukund (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi, I had a similar message, and I've given the benefit of the doubt and lifted protection to allow recreation in improved form. I've not seen the deletion discussion, so it may well be that I've made an error and the article is beyond redemption. Please let me have your views, Jimfbleak.talk.07:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerd Schenkel NPOV

Hi, pls add your reason behind adding NPOV tag and qual tag to this article. Thanks Fbooth 17:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So now instead of adding your reasons as requested you marked ot AfD - also w-out any reason given !!! (note: "not notable" is a tag not a reason !). Pls add your reasons or logic or whatever your thoughts are. This is not a dictatorship. Fbooth 10:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

ERP deletion of Openbravo and Tiny ERP?

[edit] Openbravo and Tiny ERP deletion, why ??

Why did you delete the Openbravo and Tiny ERP entries? Is there a Wiki policy that says you must have a wiki entry to list something, if so please tell me where that policy is.

Lists should only include notable entries (i.e. wikipedia articles). --Sleepyhead 07:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? Is there an official Wikipedia policy about this? If so, please tell me so I can see what I missed in the reading the policy. -- Liquidcable 14:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a guideline for lists: References for list items. Since you are the party trying to add the link, you are the one responsible for finding an independent reliable source that clearly states that your links are to free software packages, open source software packages, and notable software packages (as defined by the notability standard). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Would Sourceforge count as a reputable source? And if I created a entry for Tiny ERP and Openbravo, then I could include them in the list? Liquidcable 16:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sourceforge is not a reputable source by itself as anyone can add a project there. The openbravo article has already been removed numerous times but you are welcome to state your case on why the article should be kept. --Sleepyhead 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Edits

Sleepyhead, I've watched you on Wikipedia articles for over a year now. I wanted to bring something to your attention that you may not be aware of in hopes that we can resolve several issues. You are a wonderful citizen on Wikipedia when it comes to some technical information. That said, I feel you have a particular bias toward your own company's product. You have elevated your own company's status in pages dealing with your product offering while preventing other information from getting into Wikipedia. Information that I feel is relevant and that I would like to have had without digging through the page history and talk pages to find. I know that you are vigilant in preventing some articles from being link-spammed, but I think you may have to agree that you are biased in those edits and quite often to the detriment of a good article addition. I don't mean to start an argument with you. I'm hoping to resolve this and move along. I've been watching some articles for over a year for which you have contributed heavily. I have a lot of respect for you and I hope that you take this in the spirit of constructive criticism. Thanks for listening and happy editing. - LiverpoolsLegend 06:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam in Funambol

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Funambol, by ExtraDry (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Funambol is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Funambol, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Funambol itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salesforce.com link

Hello Sleepyhead81 - Sorry I dont know where to leave you any messages, so I'm just editing this page. Not meaning to be rude but how is it up to you to decide that it is not useful information for Authorised Salesforce.com Partners to be on Wikipedia associated with Salesforce.com? I therefore kindly to stop editing my additions. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards

Commented by User_talk:P_rackwitz

[edit] AfD nomination of List of rich Internet applications

List of rich Internet applications, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of rich Internet applications satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rich Internet applications and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of rich Internet applications during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 23:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single-page application

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Single-page application, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:24SevenOffice crm form.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:24SevenOffice crm form.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)