User talk:Startcom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Please delete this page! Please also delete the user account Startcom. Thanks a lot!

Comment: I don't fully understand the rules for deletion of User Talk pages, but I hope if an administrator chooses to follow through on this request, they will at least list it at MFD so there is a chance for comments. It seems possible that this user may return, in which case we should hang on to the previous history, and not hide it so that only administrators can see it. This editor has been involved with articles that showed up at AfD and in a widely-discussed case at WP:COI/N. EdJohnston 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actualy the page was empty, the talk page will remain. this user has been blocked indefinately as those cases are closed. I'll remove the tag it was ment for the article for the same name.--Hu12 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Thank you for your article, but wikipedia is not a web directory--Anthony.bradbury 01:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What you want

I think you wanted a Redirect. That's easy. You just put #REDIRECT (all caps) in front of the target page link. One note: Do not use underscores in the linked page name. Use the title exactly as it appears on that page, with spaces. So:

Instead of [[StartCom_Enterprise_Linux]]

You want #REDIRECT [[StartCom Enterprise Linux]]

Hope this helps. Fan-1967 01:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool! will be done!

Afterwards i clean up the mess...I didn't created the original stub for StartCom Enterprise Linux, therefor it started all wrong....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Startcom (talk • contribs) 01:49, 23 December 2006.

[edit] License tagging for Image:Screenshot-98.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Screenshot-98.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Startcom-related edits

Hi. A discussion of Startcom-related edits has been started at WT:WPSPAM#Startcom because of conflict of interest concerns. You are encouraged to share your thoughts there. JonHarder ^talk 21:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged your Startcom-series of articles as having notability problems. Once those tags go up, your article can become deletion-bait for admins concerned about corporate article spamming, so you need to move quickly to address these. Take a close look at these notability guidelines:

Proof of notability must be verifiable using reputable sources. Read the following very closely:

Reliable Sources Guideline

Also give a quick look at the underlying policies that drive the Reliable Sources Guideline:

Verifiability Policy -- especially the section "Burden of evidence"
No Original Research Policy

Be sure the articles are totally neutral in tone and do not read like something a public relations department wrote. PR-speak such as "based in Eilat, Israel - a location famous as a tourist resort town rather than a Silicon Valley".

Finally, see the Conflict of Interest Guideline. You really shouldn't be submitting or editing these articles at all, which creates a sort of no-win situation situation at this point. The answer is that you can add proposed changes to the talk page for each article then let a neutral editor decide whether to make them.

An immediate fix (especially if you're heading off for a New Year's holiday) that will hold off the deletion-wolves would be to simply put the references establishing notability on the talk page without too much regard for pretty formatting, then come back a few days later and look at further fixes.

I encourage you to join the discussion at WT:WPSPAM#Startcom that JonHarder cited above -- some good suggestions have been made. As noted there, you may wish to consider merging some of these articles. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning StartCom Entries

Hi,

If you can, please send an email to us (linux [at] startcom [dot] org) ,since discussion would be easier. I have a hard time "talking" via wikipedia.

Concerning your concerns:

It is correct, that we created the pages, after some stubs existed already (not created by us) about StartCom Linux. However the information which existed was partly wrong and incomplete (well, it was a stub). So we decided to invest time and effort to provide the best and fair information we could and make the pages informative as possible (and obviously different from our own web sites - hence this is not advertisement or spam, even if the pages created quite some interest in this short time).

I took care, to mention relevant organization, products and services of other parties including our direct competitors. If there is some information missing or different views (which are valid) I invite others to contribute to the StartCom entries, which with the time most likely might happen anyway. Also the main page about StartCom might be not complete and time allowing I'll improve that somewhat.

Also I visited numerous other entries of similar companies, products in the wikipedia and created the pages about StartCom similar. If you feel that there is a conflict somewhere please explain it to me. Thanks a lot for your time!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Startcom (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 December 2006.

[edit] Removal of StartCom Enterprise Linux

May I ask, why did you (or somebody else) removed the page about StartCom Enterprise Linux? This was the original stub to start with. How can this happen without notifying the user about such things? Look, this is the third time I invested time in this - I'm not going to recreate this pages over and over again. If you don't like it, than correct it. Else lets remove all entries about any of the Linux Vendors on Wikipedia. Well, lets remove all free and/or commercial products as well! I clearly suspect, that you yourself are perhaps affiliated with some other Linux product or vendor! Except that, we don't need the 200 hits we get from wikipedia, we are getting enough without it...

And more important now: How can we get the content back?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Startcom (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 December 2006.

I wonder, about which product and services shall we talk at the StartCom pages? About flying to space? Or dishwashers? Of course it's about our products the very same most other Linux vendors, certification authorities etc are presented, including their shiny products!

Concerning the StartCom Logo. This is the same case as with Red Hat's! You can't use the logo and name for other usage except as outlined in "fair use".

Links: I added links of StartCom to pages which already had links about other similar products. Why should this be of concern? Because it's StartCom?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Startcom (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 December 2006.

[edit] Removing notability notices.

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sign your posts

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!--Hu12 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unpaid volunteers ...

... such as myself have collectively spent as much or more time than you have on these articles. We've been trying to help you while still staying within the bounds of Wikipedia's standards. I know I spent over an hour writing up my advice to you above. Unlike yourself, none of us are getting paid by Wikipedia or Startcom.

So snapping at us and getting sarcastic -- well -- it's just not very nice.

It's also very counterproductive, since grounds exist to delete all of the other articles based on unproven notability and conflict of interest. Any of the volunteers that have been trying to help you could start this process anytime.

As for the material that was deleted: anything that smacks of copyright violation usually gets deleted in a heartbeat. Several good copyright lawsuits could wipe out Wikipedia financially and we don't take any chances. As it says below the edit window every time you edit an article:

"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

and, in bold:

"Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted."

I encourage you to consider adapting your edits to Wikipedia's requirements rather than expecting us all to adapt to Startcom's. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution?

The page of StartCom Enterprise Linux didn't have anything related to copyright violation to start with. Second, nevertheless one should contact the author(s), specially in this case, where the main contribution was made us. I have email sending on in my profile, and I'm outraged by the way this was handled! And as a side note, I didn't got paid by wikipedia to write this article, so what is your point?!

We were invited to, guided and also corrected on writing this articles and if the page of StartCom Enterprise Linux wouldn't have been deleted, than one could read the discussion which happened there previously. I don't care about how much time you or anybody else invests in wikipedia, this is your own business. I just know, that we invested time and effort, dug up material and actually thought up, to provide useful and interesting information. We volunteered to work on this and now it's gone! What did we do? Sell Viagra? Infringed which copy right exactly? Can anybody please point me to my mistake please?

OK, now what? If there is a specific problem with one of the StartCom pages, please point them out. It's absolutely not helpful posting links about some general discussions and guidelines about how to write an article. Please tell us specifically, where a problem is, since every point mentioned was corrected or adjusted by now. But just telling me, that an article might infringe copyright or just has a problem without pointing out what, doesn't make me correct it, since I don't know what to correct - if at all!

Additionally, I thought that wikipedia is about open contributions and anybody is free to add, edit and/or modify the content we put up! Therefore you and anybody else has the option to correct things and make it better....isn't this all about wikipedia? So, now I request to put back that article about StartCom Enterprise Linux in some form and please point out the copyright violation. Otherwise I suspect, that this article was removed by our competition! One should be carefully too when deleting stuff of others, which isn't obviously spam!!!!

Startcom 08:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

About StartCom Enterprise Linux: it was deleted by admin Robth because the early versions were copyright violations and it was written in a promotional tone. It was obvious spam according to Robth. If you disagree, there are two options for restoring it. Either ask Robth to restore it and simultaneously mark it for AfD so other editors can review the article and decide if it can be kept, or start the undeletion process.

To save you the trouble of rereading the helpful comments and guidelines that have been given to you, I'll summarize them here succinctly:

You did not act quickly enough on suggestions about how to fix the Startcom-logo.jpg license and it has been deleted.
Any sentences copied word-for-word from a non-free source need to be removed from the StartCom-related articles, or the page they were copied from needs to display a GFDL license. Articles not complying will be reverted or deleted.
Notability need to be established for the StartCom-related articles by providing a several of independent, reliable secondary sources. Place these on the talk page, at the very least. If sources are not forthcoming, the deletion process will be started in four days.
Refrain from making any further edits to StartCom-related articles. Place suggested changes on the associated talk pages for the consideration of neutral editors.

✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One step forward

Thank you John for your comment! I asked Robth to restore the page and I'm not against marking it as suggested. Like this we all have the option to actually see it and change, review the diffs and improve it. I think, this is how it should have been done in first place.

Logo: If there is a problem with the StartCom Logo, than you have to delete the logo of Red Hat as well. Of course I think you should restore the logo, since a logo should not be used by anybody, except for direct reference to the organization (i.e. to StartCom, resp. Red Hat). I think, this is what Wikipedia refers to "fair" use...

History of the StartCom Enterprise Linux entry:

1.) Somebody created a stub for it. There were links to it previously and obviously somebody thought it important enough to create the stub and add initial information about StartCom (Enterprise) Linux.

2.) We added some additional information and it was marked as copyright violation. Somebody made additional suggestions how to write the article.

3.) Afterwards we decided to clean up all pages relevant to StartCom and created a page about the organization and StartCom Linux. Both Linux distributions of StartCom can stand in its own rights are completely different, therefore we created two different pages for it. If it is preferred to merge this two, than we could do that (or anybody else).

4.) The next things was (after we CHANGED and created the page about for the third time), that it was deleted. I left a note for the editors, plus there was a discussion at that page. It seemed to have no effect on Robth, or he didn't realized, that the content was actually edited and changed...

And at last: What is "associated talk pages"? The discussions at each page? Anyway, I'd be glad to find a resolution to your concerns and propose changes (if needed) to the relevant pages. Thanks for your time so far...

Startcom 01:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently whoever created StartCom Enterprise Linux based it on material copied directly from the website. Since this isn't permitted without permission, it was deleted. If there is no version of that article that is copyright "clean" no administrator is likely to restore it. After reviewing the deletion log again, this appears to be the case. If so, a complete rewrite is the only route to recreating it.

The only problem with the logo was that it wasn't tagged with the correct license. I believe you can upload it again, tag it correctly and it will not be deleted. When you upload it simply select "Logo" as the licensing option and don't add any other text restricting the license. Do give a source of the logo. If you have questions about licensing, feel free to contact ReyBrujo (talk · contribs) who is an admin knowledgeable about image licensing.

Yes, by "associated talk pages" I mean the discussion pages. It's certainly confusing that they are always refered to as "Talk" pages but the tab to access it says "discussion". When supplying evidence of notability, the guidelines use this language to describe suitable sources: "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself ... [including] published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." I interpret "multiple" to mean two or more and would pay particular attention to the "independent of the company itself" clause. "In all forms" certainly includes websites.

I hope this helps. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 19:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently whoever created StartCom Enterprise Linux based it on material copied directly from the website.

The last entries were created by ourselves. Obviously the StartCom web site is the most reliable source about this subject. Sources were the StartCom Linux web site [1] and Distrowatch. Can you or anybody else mention a better source?

Concerning the logo; This is exactly what I did. It's really annoying however, that instead of helping to correct the mistake, people delete it...well, seems to be a strange behavior of this admins...Not everybody lives the wikipedia. Sorry for not knowing the correct license tag...

However, if some editor has an objection about the articles or thinks, a certain subject requires additional sources, than this should be pointed out exactly. I don't think it's useful, to cite after every sentence just another source. Please be specific (to whomever it concerns), so we can improve this work...Nothing at any of the StartCom pages is written out of the blue and any material and information was submitted by me (StartCom employee after all) under the GFDL license. It's absolute utter nonsense to delete our content if we are the copyright holder of our own web site AND the ones submitting the information! And we didn't submitted as some anonymous author, but quite the opposite...no games play here!

If there are no such objections coming forward, please remove the annoying tags from the pages relevant to StartCom, since this might put us into a bad light! I promise to address every concern put forward, but please be specific! Thanks a lot!

Copyrighted images and text are deleted rather quickly because that type of violation is taken so seriously. It is standard procedure to notify whoever added copyrighted text of the problem. Subsequent editors of the article usually are not notified. As far as StartCom adding material from the StartCom site, the permission to do so needs to be very clear, since anyone can create a user page and claim have permission to add the material. One way to confirm that the material can be used in Wikipedia is to display a GFDL license right on the source web page.

The specific concern right now is that evidence of the company's notability is lacking. Specifically, this can be provided by listing two sources independent of StartCom as described above. Another suggestion above is, if notability of individual products cannot be established, then those products should be moved into the main corporate article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the copyright, I'd rather incense the text we'd submit to Wikipedia as GFDL, rather than our whole web sites (makes sense somehow). What would be the best approach to do this?

Notability: I'd suggest to move the StartCom Linux products into the StartCom Linux page, by leaving the current content as headers intact and make the two major products sub-categories of the main header. Obviously the StartCom Enterprise Linux needs to be written again (expect in case the stuff somehow can be retrieved). Afterwards we'd simply redirect the current pages to the appropriate category of the StartCom Linux page, since there are various links to that page specifically, so I already changed some of them. Hope that was clear enough...

In that case StartCom MultiMedia Edition should be thereafter redirected to # StartCom_Linux# StartCom_MultiMedia_Edition and # StartCom_Linux# StartCom_Enterprise_Linux resp.

I'm not sure, if there are exact informations on the Internet about StartCom (Linux) as written on the current pages, but a search with Google should show up quite some material. Would be this sufficient? Or shall I search specifically for some stuff and/or sources?

[edit] Merge of Products

OK, in the meantime I merged the StartCom Linux versions into the StartCom Linux page and updated the redirects. I think this makes sense!?

Added a section about notability at the StartCom Linux and StartCom Certification Authority pages. Once satisfied with notability, somebody can remove them. However please make sure, that this issue doesn't pop up afterwards again. Thanks!

The notability work looks good. I removed the notices from the articles. You could have done it yourself in this case, after adding the links. One remaining suggestion is to pare down the notability links to the two or three that are the most significant. The English Wikipedia suggests avoiding non-English websites, so those are obvious ones to discard. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought that more would be better ;-) Just to make sure this issue doesn't come up again. But anyway, wouldn't it be better to move the links about notability to the external links section or do you view the new notability section useful?

Yes, it would be better to move them into the external links section. And if you can use them as references (and move them out of external links), that would be best of all. Are you familiar with the <ref> ... </ref> style of footnotes? See footnotes. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

better yet move them to the talk page, they won't be removed or edited--Hu12 23:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, done! Startcom 20:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Two StartCom articles were nominated for speedy deletion because there is no assertion of notability. References to the corporate web site, or to press releases (even if reprinted elsewhere), do not satisfy the requirements that Wikipedia articles reference independent, reliable sources. If you wish to dispute deletion, please tag the pages with hangon as indicated in the box at the top of the page. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We have gone through this previously! There are similar articles with similar notability unchallenged. Additionally it can't be, that every here and now somebody pops up and proposes deletion or similar. Neutrality on the person proposing deletion isn't guarantied either. Suspect some competing project or organization behind this. References were stated clearly and are not based on press releases only (need to find all stuff again if needed).

See section notability on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:StartCom_Linux (These are not press releases if you mind)

The same is true for the StartCom Certification Authority. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:StartCom_Certification_Authority section notability.

[edit] Removing notice

As advised I'm removing the notice:

"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page."

Explanation see above.

[edit] Response

The StartCom articles exist now already for a few months and where made in collaboration with others. Perhaps name your exact reasons for your suggestion for deletion, because your allegations are unsound. Check out the notability section of each article. Additionally the information provided is in informative format and not "advertisement". So I suspect you from having relations and/or interest in rival organizations and products, which would be happy to see us gone from Wikipedia. Or maybe something against an Israeli organization?

[edit] StartComs Entry

I just found this discussion, and what strikes me as odd is that CAcert hasn't been deleted, and StartCom is doing more and the CA portion is in more browsers.

It concerns me that the article was removed without notice, even if it didn't site references, shouldn't it be taken offline and the author asked to fix it, rather than simply deleting it?

I see articles all over wikipedia that state the author didn't site sources. From my standpoint, StartCom was adding the information for themselves, as no one else had done so for them. With the author being the company themselves, the work may seem like an advertisement, but that is only reason to have it corrected, not removed.

[edit] Please sign your comments

Hello Startcom. If you add four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your message, before pressing 'Save page', your message will be signed and dated automatically. This will make it more likely that other editors will understand your comments. EdJohnston 01:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK ;-) Startcom 01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

I'm currently ignoring the Startcom owned domians in the pages that are up for AfD. The external linkage in those articles is excessive and needs to be cleaned up, maybe at a future date. These two spam warnings are being awarded because of the following two diffs: [2] [3]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [4] [5] [6] [7] (Requestion 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Screenshot-18.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Screenshot-18.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to StartCom

Your recent edit to StartCom (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Screenshot-19.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Screenshot-19.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Screenshot-51.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Screenshot-51.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)