User talk:AdamJGSea

March 2009
Please, sir. This is getting silly. Please talk about your edits before blindly making them, especially when warned by multiple experienced editors about them. Your advertising is beginning to border into the realms of vandalism. Greggers (t &bull; c) 20:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Adam, I admit that I didn't look into your product enough at first, and I performed some research into what it is/what it does. Looking at this page, I can't help but notice a strange lack of the word "Twitter", or anything related to Twitter, anywhere. I can see a resemblance between the products, but yours doesn't actually seem to be involved at all with Twitter.
 * I've listed PhotoShare in the Requested article section of Wikipedia (here), so an editor with an interest in knowledge may put the article together. Though I can't promise anything.
 * Think about the number of applications for the iPhone. Wikipedia can't feasibly have an article on every single one of them. If yours particularly stands out, I dare say the article will appear by its own accord. I hope this helps. Greggers (t &bull; c) 08:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We offer a service like Twitpic -- except we offer a lot more. Anyone from PhotoShare can add his/her Twitter info into the profile page. So when a photo is uploaded to PhotoShare it generates a link posted to his/her Twitter account. I can send you a screen shot of my Twitter page if you'd like. So, while we do not mention Twit. . . in our name we offer services similar to those already posted. On this basis I would like to add the information back onto the Twitter page. Thoughts?


 * Sorry for not noticing your response - I'm used to things being sent to my own talk page. And apologies for not explaining myself properly: let me put it a different way. If you look at WP:SOAPBOX, you'll hopefully appreciate that Wikipedia is source of information, not a place of advertising. By writing an article yourself about an article you have a conflict of interest with, you are on the boundary of breaking those Soapbox guidelines. Instead, it's better to wait until a user of your software themselves feels an article should be created and does so, from a more neutral point of view. And before you challenge the feasibility of that scenario, I'd like to point out that it's exactly what happened with TweetDeck a few days ago. Greggers <sup style="color:#A00;font-weight:bold;font-size:10px;">(<b style="color:#A00">t</b> &bull; <b style="color:#A00">c</b>) 14:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)