User talk:Abhay.kolhar

January 2010
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Subex. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Subex, you will be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(And again... )

Use of Wikipedia for promotion, and conflict of interest
I see that, despite the communications between us in the past about your editing of Subex, you have continued to add promotional material to the article. Can I remind you that Wikipedia guidelines strongly discourage editing of any article by anyone who has a direct involvement which may produce a conflict of interest, so that really you should not be editing this article at all. This has been explained to you above, and again on my talk page.

There is also the issue of using the article for promotion. I accept that your recent edits have avoided some of the more blatantly promotional language which you used before, but the character of your editing still looks unambiguously like an attempt to promote the company. I gave in reply to you on my talk page a few examples of the sort of promotional language you were placing in the article; for convenience I shall repeat them here, and also add a couple more examples you have added since then:
 * Learn about our suite of breakthrough service fulfillment products.
 * Learn how our suite of revenue maximization products offer you the ability to manage and reduce risks to the revenue chain and maximize operational efficiency.
 * Moneta is highly effective in both traditional circuit-switched and Next Generation packet-switched service environment.
 * Vector is a complete catalog-driven service fulfillment solution that enables service providers to ... better serve customers with on-demand offerings and support; drive costs out of their business through greater automation.
 * By ensuring quick, reliable service fulfillment, NetProvision accelerates time-to-market for new offerings and facilitates mass-market efficiencies, while supporting crucial network transformation projects.
 * Subex Limited ... empowers communications service providers (CSPs) to achieve competitive advantage through Business Optimization and Service Agility - thereby enabling them to better operational efficiency to deliver enhanced service experiences to subscribers.
 * Nikira Fraud Management System is the next generation fraud management solution ...
 * Moneta Revenue Assurance System is designed to tackle critical challenges across the entire revenue chains inherent to service verticals and functional areas. (To me this prompts the question "Yes, but what does it actually do?")
 * Subex offers a flexible, scalable and comprehensive Managed Services program that adds strategic and tactical value to communication service providers operations and enhances their operational efficiency, service agility and profitability while also enabling them to better their customer experience.

Apart from the particular forms of language being the sort of thing that occurs in a company's promotional literature, not in an encyclopedia article, the entire structure of the material you have added is promotional. Thus you have added a fairly long list of the company's products, in each case giving exactly the sort of detail that you might give if you were writing here in the hope that potential customers would read the article and be impressed by the product details. It is open to question whether an encyclopedia article needs to contain a full list of the company's products at all, but if it does so then it should simply list the products and briefly indicate the purpose of each product. As I said above, you have now been avoiding the most blatant promotional language which you used to use, but someone closely involved in a subject very often does not realise what their editing will look like to an outsider, who sees it from a more distant perspective. This is one of the main reasons why editing by a user with a conflict of interest is discouraged: even if you are sincerely intending to give an unbiased account there is a danger that you will not realise that you are writing as an advocate, rather than as an observer. (This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that some people with a conflict of interest do not even intend to be impartial, but are deliberately seeking to use Wikipedia as a free advertising service.)

At the end of our conversation on my talk page you wrote "So we understand the Wikipedia guidelines, so we will abide by that". I have no doubt that you were sincere in intending to do this, but with all respect to your good intentions you have failed to do so. I will remind you once again that editing by someone with a potential conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. I will also remind you that continually adding promotional material to articles can lead to being blocked from editing, though I hope it will not come to that. I shall carefully read through the current form of the article with a view to editing it to give a neutral coverage, while trying to retain any worthwhile contributions which may be contained in your recent editing. This will take considerably more time and effort than the easier solution of simply reverting to the version before your changes, and I hope you will understand that I do not think that repeatedly doing this is a viable proposition. I may also say that the task will not be entirely easy due to the obscurity if presentation of some of the information. For example, referring again to "Moneta Revenue Assurance System is designed to tackle critical challenges across the entire revenue chains inherent to service verticals and functional areas", it is not at all clear what to write about this product, as all that I have is the promotional language, with no objective information at all as to what the product does. I shall, however, do my best. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Subex
The following discussion has been copied here from User talk:JamesBWatson.

I was updating the information from www.subexworld.com to subex wikipedia. As I work Subex, Bangalore I was updating the information on wikipedia. So I was not violating the guidelines. So it is an OBJECTIVE PROSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhay.kolhar (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, you were acting against several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Firstly, the material you added was quite unambiguously of a promotional nature, and Wikipedia does not accept promotion or advertising. Secondly, the fact that you work for Subex means that you have a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia strongly discourages any editing of an article in which you have a conflict of interest. Thirdly, if the material was copied from www.subexworld.com then it is a breach of copyright, unless you have evidence that the owner of the copyright has given permission for free use of the material under the terms of Wikipedia's licensing arrangements. Since www.subexworld.com displays the notice "© 2009 Subex Limited. All Rights Reserved" on every page I think it unlikely that they are willing to give permission for its free use, but in any case the onus is on you to show that this has been done. I shall post on your talk page a welcome notice, containing links to various Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc: you may find some of them useful in understanding how Wikipedia works. Please feel welcome to ask me if there is any other help I can give. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Abhay.kolhar (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I was not violating the guidelines, I was pasting the contents from subex website(www.subexworld.com) to wikipedia.

I work for subex so I was updating the content.


 * Abhay.kolhar (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)So can I continue with editing of Subex Wikipedia from my company website www.subexworld.com.

As Subex is my company, We have to update information about Subex on wikipedia. So it is an OBJECTIVE PROSE.

Rgds Abhay
 * Abhay.kolhar (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to see how I can make this any clearer than I have done above. However, I shall try to clarify a few points.
 * It is emphatically not true that because you work for Subex you have to edit the article about Subex. In fact the exact opposite is true: Wikipedia policy strongly discourages you from editing an article about a company you work for, as you will have a conflict of interest.
 * There is no way that your editing could reasonably be described as "updating" information. You have added substantial amounts of new text, far longer than the entire length of the article before you edited it, and including material on topics not mentioned before.
 * I do not know what you mean by "objective prose", but the material you have added is entirely promotional in nature. Since you wrote it yourself I find it hard to understand how you can be unaware of that fact, but here are a few quotations to illustrate the promotional nature of your editing:
 * Learn about our suite of breakthrough service fulfillment products.
 * Learn how our suite of revenue maximization products offer you the ability to manage and reduce risks to the revenue chain and maximize operational efficiency.
 * Moneta is highly effective in both traditional circuit-switched and Next Generation packet-switched service environment.
 * Vector is a complete catalog-driven service fulfillment solution that enables service providers to ... better serve customers with on-demand offerings and support; drive costs out of their business through greater automation.
 * By ensuring quick, reliable service fulfillment, NetProvision accelerates time-to-market for new offerings and facilitates mass-market efficiencies, while supporting crucial network transformation projects.
 * And so it goes on. If you really cannot see that this is the sort of writing that appears in advertising copy, not in encyclopedia articles, then you may possibly not be suited to the task of writing encyclopedia articles on ahything, whether you have a conflict of interest or not. JamesBWatson (talk)

Abhay.kolhar (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)So we understand the Wikipedia guidelines, so we will abide by that.

Regards AbhayHi,

I think I have made necessary changes what you wanted and you also edited the document, then why the message is appearing at the top of the subex encyclopedia page.

Regards Abhay Abhay.kolhar (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean the "multiple issues" template at the top of the article Subex. I should have thought that the question would have been better addressed to the editor who placed that template there. I should also have thought that most of it was self-explanatory. For example "It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications" means just what it says: there are no sources given apart from the company's own press releases etc. Likewise "It may contain improper references to self-published sources". Then we have "It is written like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view": although some of the most blatantly promotional language in early versions of the article has gone, it still does not read as an objective view. If you cannot see that, then it seems to me that this is strong confirmation of a well-established fact: someone closely involved in a topic is likely to be unable to see things on that topic from an impartial perspective, and is likely to be blind to the fact that coverage is from a limited point of view. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia's strongly discourages editing by anyone with a conflict of interest, as I have pointed out before, but which you have decided to ignore.
 * This thread was started by a post from you on my talk page. However, it has now grown considerably, and, since it is really more to do with your editing than mine, I am copying it to your talk page. I suggest that any further discussion on this should be on your talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)