Talk:Christopher P. Lynch

Dear respected wikipedia reviewers,

We would like to present an argument that Christopher P. Lynch satisfies the wikipedia notability criteria, and therefore the associated article Christopher P. Lynch should not be subject to deletion.

The WP:BIO notability criteria state the following: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Christopher P. Lynch satisfies the above criteria, as is substantiated by the numerous articles from published influential secondary sources referenced at the bottom of the article Christopher P. Lynch, including Boston Business Journal, Xconomy, Mass High Tech, and Network World.

Mr. Lynch has made significant contributions to the high tech IT industry throughout his career in the last few decades, as is portrayed objectively in the above article. His exemplary career serves to inspire the young generations of IT entrepreneurs, and we believe this wikipedia article will contribute to that cause. Thank you again for taking time to review this article and the discussion here. Your continued guidance and feedback will be very much appreciated.

--Mhong2011 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear wikipedia viewers, could you please re-review this page as I believe I have corrected all of the issues that were previously identified. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattburke215 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Michael and other wikipedia reviewers
We have taken the efforts to make sure that only verifiable, factual information is presented on this page. Adjectives such as "prominent" have been removed. Please notify us if you have any questions, which we will address promptly. We would appreciate it if you do not remove important information such as relevant articles and invested companies made by Mr. Lynch. It would be unfair and bias to selectively present a partial list of these elements. Thank you. Mhong2011 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you editing on behalf of Lynch? You should realize that you do not own this page, and in fact, the recent changes have been to ensure that "only verifiable, factual information" exists in the article. The large sections that were removed were very promotional in nature (the interviews), and the "articles" should have been used as references in the text - if you'll notice, I did in fact move many of them to appropriate places in the article where they were useful. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia does NOT exist to be a promotional platform for Lynch - the standards that apply to all articles apply to this one as well, and should you attempt to revert to your preferred version again, without discussing why that promotional version is necessary, will be dealt with accordingly. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, your latest edit has the following problems:
 * It removed many third party references, and instead used the place holder phrase "external citation needed". This is a regression in quality, and disrespect of our previous work.
 * It removed facts such as the names of some start-up companies invested by Lynch. This introduced bias (You chose to retain 2 start-up companies out of the complete list -- is it your intention to do a favor to these companies?)
 * It removed the previous article formatting based on sections and bullet points, which made the article less readable.


 * Overall, your edit significantly decreased the article's quality. I made an attempt to address the above issues, as is summarized below:
 * I added the third party references back, but took care to remove any HP or Vertica press releases to avoid subjectivity.
 * I also removed the video interview references as you seem to view these third party references as promotional, a view I do not share but decide to accommodate to gain some common ground.
 * I broke the career steps into bullet points for better formatting and readability.


 * If you have concerns on any edits below, please talk back and we will refine together. Do not revert the article back to your previous edit, which suffers from the various problems described above.

--Mhong2011 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You have turned the page into essentially a promotional platform for Lynch, with a clear bias in his favor. You have also continued to remove the COI template, a clear violation of policy, given your admitted conflict of interest in the subject. Frankly, I find the excessively promotional version to be the inferior version, as it does not reflect a neutral portrait of the person. You should refrain from massive changes to the article without discussing it in the future - you continued attempts to ram your promotional versions reeks of ownership, and will not be tolerated. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mike, I have repetitively asked for you to be specific in providing feedback. e.g. which sentences or phrases are promotional? So far you have provided none. You need to stop making general claims and accusations such as "turning the page into essentially a promotional platform." BE SPECIFIC. Can you do that?
 * Your continuous content reversion without explanation is not acceptable. The reversion is significantly damaging the article's quality as outlined above. NEED EXPLANATION.
 * You don't have to right to revert this page without reaching consensus on the talk page. What special rights on wikipedia do you have?
 * My edit should not be rejected simply on the ground of my relationship with Lynch. Please focus on the article content. --Mhong2011 (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, your edit should be rejected simply on those grounds. We don't get to promote ourselves or our companies on Wikipedia, and you insist on doing so; hence, you may not edit Wikipedia. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Mhong2011 makes it clear by the use of the first person plural that they are editing on behalf of some group or organization of some kind, and they have also been repeatedly rewriting this article in an unacceptably promotional style, despite numerous warnings and two blocks. Either of those would be worthy of a block, so I have blocked indefinitely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Reviewers, I have attempted to make this article neutral and cite all claims with public references. The creator Mhong2011 has not contributed to this in more almost two years. Could you please advise on first if the article is acceptable and second how we might have the disclaimer (stating that the article is not neutral) removed? Thank you! Mattburke215 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Respected Wikipedia Reviewers: I too have gone through and made sure a neutral voice has been kept and that all sourcing and links are functional. I am willing to do more editing work to be sure the article is up to standard. Please advise on how to proceed and what should be done about the advisory. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Dowd (talk • contribs) 14:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)