Talk:PolyAnalyst

September 2020 Treehouse pitch

 * Note to reviewer: This conversation is about an earlier version of the article. The article has since been re-written, and its subject has been changed from "Megaputer Intelligence" to "PolyAnalyst". Sam at Megaputer (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw your pitch on the Treehouse.

My first reaction is Blow it up and start over.

Why?

It sounded too much like a brochure or white paper.

My second reaction was to poke around at the references to see if this company is even notable. I was expecting the answer to be "no" but was surprised to find that it is "marginal." It looks like there have been 1 or 2 case studies or similar objective studies of its products and it looks like at least one industry publication considers the company a "top 10" in the field. That doesn't mean the company DOES meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, it just means my initial "oh boy, here comes another wiki-spamvertisement" cynical outlook was a bit too cynical.

Unfortunately, because you are editing from a non-neutral point of view and it's obvious that you haven't worked to present a completely neutral point of view, reviewers are going to be more demanding than if you were writing on a topic you weren't emotionally or financially invested in. IF you can find published, reliable, independent sources that collectively show that the company - not just its products - has received significant coverage, that will go a long way. It might even help to list the "top 3-5" references on the talk page that, if looked at alone, without the draft, would make a Wikipedia editor think "hmm, I can write an article about this topic and easily demonstrate that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines."

If you can't do that, then you will have a hard time writing an article that will survive a trip to Articles for deletion or avoid being sent to "Draft" space by a new-page-patroller.

Bottom line:

If you can't find a set of 3-5 references that, taken together, would convince an objective reviewer that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are probably wasting your time. I say "probably" because there are exceptions to every rule.

I hope this feedback helps.

Oh, as you are an experienced editor, I don't have to tell you what Wikipedia is not, but it might help if you showed your boss anyway. He might find some other task for you to do that will be just as interesting for you and more profitable for him. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. It is true that most of what has been written about the company is about the software, not the company. There are some good sources (and even some that I haven't added yet) which proves that the software is notable. Do you think that an article on the PolyAnalyst software might be better than one on the company? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. When you get your best handful of references available, ping me.  It may be that both qualify, or that neither one qualifies.  No amount of editing can magically change a non-notable company or product into a notable one, but a lousy job of finding solid references and using them effectively as you edit  can make a "notable enough for Wikipedia" topic appear non-notable.   davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I still have some more references to gather up (books and scientific articles), but I'll do that. I understand that you must get frustrated dealing with paid editors, but I can guarantee you that I'm committed to making this article Wikipedia complaint. I'll be sure to give it a going-over for neutrality before I consider publishing. And by the way, you might want to take a look at the article of one of Megaputer's competitors, RapidMiner. The only independent and reliable sources that they use are two articles from TechCrunch. It's mostly built on blogs. I'd fix it myself if not for my COI. Thanks again for the advice, and I'll ping you again when all of the sources are ready. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I will keep this draft on my watchlist, I will not have much time to devote to it in the near future. I left a long comment with general advice and a link to another article that was recently created that almost got deleted for being too promotional.  Rather than being deleted, it got severely trimmed.  For topics of "marginal notability" like that topic, "less is more."  It's far better to write a short article with a small number of references that, taken together, demonstrate the topic is "notable enough" even if barely so, than to have a large article with dozens of references that give the impression that the author is trying to promote the topic rather than build an encyclopedia.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  15:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Best sources to establish notability
I still have some significant work to do on the article, but I have the sources ready. That stuff you sent me really helped. I don't think that Megaputer is notable at this time, but unless I'm quite mistaken, PolyAnalyst is. I have included only the best sources for establishing notability, but there are also some others that are pretty good. Please tell me what you think.

Scientific literature

 * PolyAnalyst has been reviewed against its competitors in three scientific articles.  These papers are all by the same authors, so I think this only counts as one source. These authors also wrote a case study on PolyAnalyst and the hotel industry.


 * Another case study about PolyAnalyst in the hotel industry from a different author.


 * Another article on PolyAnalyst.


 * There is also this case study on PolyAnalyst. It is written in Chinese, which might seem strange until you realize that PolyAnalyst is primarily a linguistics software. I'm still trying to get a copy of an English language translation.

Industry Research

 * PolyAnalyst has been covered by Forrester Research and by Gartner. You may not be able to read these reports (I'm told they sell for around $6000), but getting covered in them is kind of a big deal.

Reviews

 * PolyAnalyst got a full two pages of coverage in this Info World review.

Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Another source to keep for later

 * A source that may be useful later. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

COI disclosure
As you can see from the comments on the article's page, Cassiopeia is claiming that I have not properly disclosed my COI. This user has repeatedly made this claim both here and other places. Can you verify that I have properly disclosed? Also, I have done my best to make this article neutral. If it is not neutral, I hope you will clean it up because at this point I have done the best I can do. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Greetings. I advised creator to use the template which the instruction on WP:DISCLOSE where by the page created by editor could be shown on the user talk page. Cassiopeia(talk) 04:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer to use text. I believe that this is acceptable. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 12:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Using the template puts your user page in some important categories. If the template changes in the future, the categories may change, which is why manually adding the page to those categories isn't the best solution.  If you do not want the user box to be obvious to people who see your user page, you might try using the collapse top and collapse bottom templates and put the userbox inside the collapsed section.  It will look something like this:

Put your userbox here.


 * As for meeting the legal requirements of the disclosure, text is appears at first glance to be sufficient but for an official answer to whether a non-standard way of complying with the terms of use of the Wikimedia Foundation, consult someone qualified to give legal advice. I am not licensed to practice law.
 * Even if it is compliant, text with the proper categories would be much better and less likely to be seen as "complying with the letter of the law without complying with its spirit." However, it will be your responsibility to periodically check to make sure the template hasn't changed categories, and copy any changes to your user page if it does.  You can see the template's categories by editing the bottom section template's documentation page, looking for  ] .
 * I hope this helps.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  12:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, David. As usual, your input has been very helpful. I did not want to use the template because I viewed it as an eyesore, but now that I know of its other advantages I will add one to my user page. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Connected contributor template
Per Template:COI, "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning." You have placed the tag, but you have not started such a discussion. Would you like to do so? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sam at Megaputer, A NPOV template on article is about NPOV but we are talking about COI here. This is a draft page and as mentioned before the template is not only for you but for the reviewer. Secondly, the COI user template for this article indicated you have a COI for this article which your userpage has not indicated. (Your text in your user page indicate you have COI for your company and PolyAnalyst) but a template is need to indicate you have a COI for this article and that is where the COI article in user page template comes in. In regardless you deem it is an eyesore for you to see the template in your user page or not, do note this is Wikipedia and the template is not only for you but for is to made known for "all other editors" to know and that is the point. Editors need to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, you could do anything you want if you write/edit an article in your own blog/website.  Cassiopeia(talk) 22:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you meant "ping" not "u" there CASSIOPEIA. Sam probably got the ping, I did not.  Fortunately I have this on my watch list. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Cassiopeia Please stop suggesting that I have not complied with guidelines! I have not now or ever violated COI guidelines! I think that this is literally the fifth time that I have asked you to stop accusing me of that. You have done it both here and in other places. I don't want this to get messy, but if you keep on making this false accusation I will have to consider it a personal attack.


 * Per WP:COI a userbox on one's userpage is suggested, but not required. Text is OK too. But this hardly matters as I have added the userbox anyway. As for the template that you posted on the draft page, I reiterate the contents of Template:COI: "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning." That means that you have to start a discussion about why the article is non-neutral or I get to remove the template you have placed on the draft page. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Once again, COI is not NPOV. NPOV tag indicates the content might not meet NPOV guidlines. COI tag is indicated the creator has COI with the subject which you have sine you work for the company. And I saw you did put the article COI template on your user page - so we are good here. By the way your user and talk page is on my watchlist. We are already discuss here already. Do note, no one own any page in Wikipedia including your talk page, your user page, the page your created which apply to all editors including I. Once we press submit/save the edit, we give away our copyright for anyone in the world to use them in any one to change/edit them in Wikipedia as long as the editors adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Draft page need to be review by the AfC reviewer then by the NPP reviewer to make it to mains space. You could see hundred of thousands articles in draft and mainspace are tagged for certain reasons. By the way articles that make it to mainspace would still be subject for deletion if it meet the deletion guidelines or does not pass the notability guidelines regardless how long/years the article existed in the main space and even the article survive the deletion discussion, it can be re-nominated for deletion as many times as it existed in Wikipedia if any editor deem the article does not pass the notability guidelines. Article about a company or product notability guidelines are particular strict, and many articles make it to the mainspace have ended up in deletion discussion and not many survive. So your article has some certain process to go through. For you to be a COI editor who works for the company, you should not remove the tag. Also Wikipedia a volunteer project consists of million editors who edit/create the pages that they are free of COI/paid and Wikipedia strongly discourage aid/COI and copyvio articles and they take this matter extremely seriously, especially for editor who has has COI and has been blocked before like yourself.  I did not personal attack you or single you out, but I am to serve and protect Wikipedia as its guidelines set out. You said I didnt discuss with your on your user name and said it violated the guidelines, which I did on my talk page and did say your user name is permissible and I did ask you to disclose if you have another account in Wikipedia and kindly disclose it but you didnt answer me. So please, let the submission process run as it should be and do note the backlog is about 2 months and it might take a few days or a few months before a reviewer would pick up this article to review it. Do take care Sam at Megaputer and stay safe during C-19 time. Best. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The connected contributor template is a type of NPOV template. Please click this link and read the text that is highlighted in yellow. If you have no intention of starting up a POV discussion I will remove the template immediately. Also, please stop screwing with the order of comments. I don't know why you do this, but fixing them again is a drain on my time. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * yes I meant to "ping" instead of "u", thank your to letting me know. By the way, I have changed my username from all caps to sentence case for about 10 months now which I stated in my user page. Take care davidwr and stay safe. best. Cassiopeia(talk) 07:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the all caps there Cassiopeia, I don't know what happened. davidwr/
 * No worries. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk)/(contribs) 12:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to start a discussion to explain what about this article is non-neutral? If so, the time to do it is now. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Again you have a direct COI and again I have stated prior this thread I would not review your page as you had requested me to be your mentor for CUVA which your withdrew after I have placed the COI tag in this article. I would not want to involve in your review or content for I wish be an uninvolved reviewer here. Any editor can discuss the matter if they wish. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 01:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much of this you have been following. I'm sorry to rope you into this, but I don't know what else to do. This editor refuses to engage with me. Every time I try to engage them, they just ignore everything I have say cast baseless aspersions that I am violating guideline when I have done no such thing. You can see it on this talk page, on the comments at the top of the draft, and on all other pages where I have encountered them.


 * They keep reversing the order of comments (here here and here) even though I have asked them not to, and now accuse me of deceptively modifying my comments just for putting them back in the right order. They have not stopped using these comments to cast baseless aspersion, even though I have asked them to stop more times that I care to gather diffs for. They even reported me on an AN noticeboard for something I didn't do.


 * This section was about the connected contributor template that has been posted to the draft page, and in particular, the text highlighted in yellow on the template's page. Anyone user who places this template is supposed to immediately start a conversation about why the article is POV and how to correct the problem. I have asked Cassiopeia to start such a discussion in nearly every one of my comments, but I still have no response. I don't think I have any hope of getting through to this editor, and I see no end in sight. I am in need of help from a third party. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to give a just reply to all you wrote, but I do have a technical point: One of the tools that the AFC reviewers uses automatically puts "afc" templates in a programmed order.  In other words, the re-ordering may be done by a script, not by an intentional "I'm going to revert you" mentality. I wouldn't concern myself too much if the order is oldest-to-newest or newest-to-oldest as long as they are in order one way or the other.   davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  02:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting out that comment thing. That's a good start, at least. Your help has been much appreciated. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

promotional content
The content in the "Applications" section looks more like promotional marketing. Theroadislong (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would help if an experienced editor who had some familiarity with the product but was not a current customer and who had no affiliation with the company would rewrite this, removing or severely condensing things that are not needed in an encyclopedia article about a product that is not extremely widely used.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  15:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request
Please include the following image in the article under the "Health Care" section.

Sam at Megaputer (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Paid contributions tag
After this was moved to Mainspace Feb 3, 2020, the article creator, who also works for Megaputer/Polyanalyst, made about 50 edits to the article. This needs to be checked over by someone with a bit of a software background, for neutrality and promotion. --- Possibly (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * https://big-data.insuranceciooutlook.com/vendor/megaputer-intelligence-cid-5-mid-10.html is a trade press advertorial, we need a better source on subrogation. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)