Talk:Bluebeam Software, Inc.

Templates
This article has two templates currently, 'COI' and 'More Footnotes'. It seems the footnotes have been more-than-adequately addressed, and no justification has been provided for the COI template, so I have removed both. Walkersam (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I added them because if you look at the history, you'll see michelaineW has made 20 edits but no other contributions anywhere else, meganfingert added lots of content, has contributed nowhere else and Bpg3d created the article and added half the content and has made no contributions elsewhere. The majority of edits by actual editors have not really added content but have been on ancillary edits such as categorising etc. A huge proportion of this article has come from these 3, and with commercial entities and SPA issues, it is normally always due to PR activities rather than truly independent editors. Pretty open and shut case of COI promotional spam to me. Re-adding unless you can justify a reason not to. Rayman60 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Presuming the worst-case scenario, that a user adding factual info to an article, who does not have significant contributions elsewhere, must necessarily have a business relationship with the topic at hand, seems ludicrous to me and I cannot imagine is stated Wikipedia policy. Can you point me to anything indicating as much? "Open and shut case" seems a very ironic justice-system metaphor for a situation in which you have made a judgment without even a cursory attempt to open discourse with the individuals in question. Have you or anyone else sought clarity from the registered users you are accusing of not disclosing professional ties?


 * I can certainly conceive of a number of legitimate reasons why a Wikipedia user would have significant contributions to one particular article, and I don't presume this is an unusual scenario. I, for example, was motivated to do some sleuthing for my recent edit to this page regarding legacy products not because I am employed by Bluebeam Software, but because I work for a firm which makes extensive use of their products and so it is in front of my face several hours a day, while the public at large has little familiarity with it, so I wanted to share some of my 'specialty' knowledge. I could list many colleagues who might be similarly motivated when coming across this article, even if they may not (yet) be "actual editors".


 * Presuming baselessly that an article is "promotional spam" because it is largely maintained by a handful of users without substantial edits outside their domain is harmful to the ethos and livelihood of Wikipedia. Even presuming these users have failed to reveal a conflict of interest, that does not make the article "spam" or "promotion". All the claims currently contained in it seem to me quite factual and NPOV (not to mention well-sourced), and the article certainly is notable as it is commercial software with thousands of users in notable professional firms across the world. Do you have an actual reason for accusing michelaineW, meganfingert and Bpg3d of undisclosed financial relationships with Bluebeam Software beyond the fact that they've contributed substantially to this article? Walkersam (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed your template, again, because it seems pretty clear you have not followed the guidelines for the policy you are invoking, specifically:


 * "If an editor has disclosed that s/he is editing with a COI, or edits in a way that leads you to believe they might have a COI, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, citing this guideline, or open a thread on WP:COIN. Avoid making disparaging comments about the subject of the article, its author, or the author's motives."


 * Walkersam (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)