Talk:Openet

This article has 21 references from the articles own website, it desperately needs some more third party references.  Teapot  george Talk  17:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I will find as many third party as I can. There should be quite a few. Thanks Stephen0001--Stephen 0001 (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you leave some information on how to better this page? As far as I can see there are enough secondary sources to give this topic notability? Do I need more? I have been adding secondary references as well. What areas of the article are not neutral and I will improve them? Stephen0001--Stephen 0001 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This may be hard to swallow, but I ended up deleting most of the article. The 1 paragraph that is there now is better than the monster the article was before. I want to provide a few notes and if you want to try again, I'm happy to help any way I can:

CorporateM (Talk) 01:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't allow external links in the body of the article
 * The "Notable deals" section could be re-done in 2-3 paragraphs focusing on deals that are included in profile stories in the media and have attracted significant attention for their size, uniqueness or controversy, as oppose to a list of every deal the company has made.
 * I deleted adjectives like "high performance" and "integrated"
 * Lists in general are usually something to be avoided
 * We do not put the leadership team on Wikipedia - just not something we do
 * A dedicated "Awards" section is promotional. We don't include every award that is verifiable, but a Reception or Products section may include those awards that are notable enough to be included in profile stories on the company.
 * Anything like "enable to" is going to be benefits-oriented, which we want to avoid
 * The word "success" is almost always verbotten
 * In general the article was way too long and cited a lot of press releases

Openet Article
Hi. Any information on why the latest update on Openet being ranked number one in the policy software market by Infonetics was deleted would be great. I'm keen to make sure all information here is balanced, so any further advice would be great. Thanks. Mark p irl (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This was already added previously in a more neutral manner: "Openet has an 11 percent share of the wireless policy management software market, the largest among its competitors." Please read WP:COI and consider proposing your changes on the Talk page in the future and/or read the banner at the top of this Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your reply. The second report is actually a different, newer report. Also, is there a reason why the product sentence was taken down? It simply stated the products Openet has. Listing the products companies offer seems very usual across Wiki pages on companies. Thanks again. Mark p irl (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is fine. I put the product list back in. CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey - I notice most company sites list customers to some degree. Would it be possible to do so here? Something like this:


 * Openet customers include AT&T, Verizon, Bell Mobility, Orange, and Vodafone Netherlands.

Due to the prior editing history and general unwillingness to follow instructions, I am on the defensive in such a way that I am prone to revert almost anything except edits that are completely un-objectionable.

We do often include client information depending on the source material, but it's frustrating to have an editor adding only the most promotional aspects of an acceptable article, when what we care most about is the company's history.

I don't think an article that is selectively improved in such a way that it only includes the most promotional aspects is actually an improvement, especially when that editor is the only one likely to contribute to the article. Just as it is not an improvement to an article when someone with an axe to grind adds only the criticisms and controversies. What we want is a balanced article and I am unwilling to devote the time to balance your work, so I revert it instead.

Our Featured Articles are a good example to draw from. Please read WP:COI. It is not acceptable practice here for you to edit a crowd-sourced website as a marketing pro, especially given legal guidance that requires readers know the source of the communication - in this case readers presume our content comes from disinterested volunteers, not PR folks. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi CorporateM. I understand what you mean about the previous version of this article and am trying to keep it balanced going forward. Is naming customers promotional? I'd see it as more of a statement of fact. Absolutely, we will make sure to keep any promotional language or content out, but I can see from other examples that listing customers is common across company pages. If you could clarify on this that would be great. Thanks for your time on this.   Mark p irl (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Clients are a part of an acceptable article, especially when done in a more meaningful way rather than just a list. You want to argue the point regarding this specific issue, because it's what you want added to the article now, but I am more concerned about the article as a hole. If I allow you to continue to add the most promotional aspects of an acceptable article, we will end up with an article that was not improved at all, but rather something transformed into a barely tolerable product page that is not representative of the available literature. To a certain extent this is ubiquitious because every article is incomplete and an ongoing work-in-progress, but there is a point where adding the most promotional aspects is done to such an extreme that is no longer an improvement to the article.


 * If you continue to add product information without expanding the History section, I will feel obligated to balance your work. The end result would be that Openet would get a free article from the volunteer community by astroturfing the site, even while other PRs offering something of reasonable value go ignored. This problem is common - that the best way for a PR person to get attention drawn to their article is to themselves be problematic, but I will not feed it. CorporateM


 * You should read WP:COI and follow the instructions in the template at the top of this page. (Talk) 19:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)