Talk:Sitebrand/Archive 1

Contesting speedy deletion
helpme

Sitebrand the company does exist, I inserted two refrences and have a dozen more. This is the 6th time I have tried to create this,

http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/291293365508057.php

This article was posted in the Ottawa Business Journal about Sitebrand and how it has influenced our community.

Please let me know how I can fix this so my page doesn't get deleted next time.

(Briannebassett (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I've expanded this article and added a couple more reliable sources, so this company's page won't be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah you would assume a listed company satisfies WP:N but that's not really my area. -- samj in out 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
This article was created by User:Briannebassett, who is closely related to the company. It was reported on WP:COIN and checked for policy problems (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V) and appears to be clean currently. In the absence of any policy violations I'm not going to tag it COI, and it does appear to have been written in good faith, but you guys need to tread very carefully unless you want to see your article [speedily] deleted. In particular make sure you read WP:SOAP and keep your edits neutral and referenced with reliable sources. -- samj in out 23:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have this article watchlisted, so I'll remove any POV edits if I see any. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! -- samj in out 19:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a student of Fanshawe College currently helping out Sitebrand, I am contributing and helping them with many different tasks. One being contributing to Wikipedia by telling people about how they used their segment&serve product which shaped the way for many online marketers to create products of their own. They only recently went public a couple months ago, that's why there isn't alot of information on the internet on the company.. I am NOT employed by them, I am just a student working on a research project where we have to work with real clients, many of them don't know how to use Wikpedia, Facebook, etc. I am bringing my skills I have learned and TEACHING THEM how to use it. (Briannebassett (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

I also don't appreciate your company "googling" me, if you want to know more about me, just ask yourself. (Briannebassett (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC))


 * For what it's worth, you have people who've visited here and offered advice in helping you make sure your edits to this article are in line with relevant policies. The question about a potential conflict of interest was a valid one given the pattern of edits and the available information. The context you've provided here is helpful in that regard, but edits like this one aren't exactly going to win you any points, nor will they reflect well on your client. You should also note that it's not really appropriate to edit other users' talk page comments. Mlaffs (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are others who have edited this page, so please don't point your finger at me thank you very much (Briannebassett (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes, but the edit changing the link in the first post of this section from www.google.com to www.kissmyass.com was yours. That's the edit to which I'm referring. Mlaffs (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No the link was linked to my name, think if someone googled you, you have no idea who they are, and they are able to find info about you and you know nothing about them, it's kinda freaky, I hope this doesn't violate your terms of agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannebassett (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a company and it doesn't have a "terms of agreement" as such. You have the option of using an alias yet you (like me) chose to use your full name. If you are so concerned about your privacy then perhaps you should consider following the example of the vast majority of wikipedians. I spent some time diagnosing your infobox to improve your article and refrained from tagging it coi as may well have been justified. Your behaviour above was quite unacceptable (thanks Mlaffs for spotting it) and if it recurs you will likely be blocked. -- samj in out 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)