User talk:Boegman

Proposed deletion of Ovaflo
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Ovaflo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  TN ‑ X - Man  13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ovaflo
I have nominated Ovaflo, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Ovaflo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  TN ‑ X - Man  14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ovaflo


A tag has been placed on Ovaflo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Promotion
We still don't allow advertising or promotion. I would think that in another six years we still won't. Peridon (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Demotion
Thanks for the feedback and I realise that I'm seriously getting bullied here. Not use to bullying so I'm feeling all sorts of emotions... I'll try and keep the emotions at bay. Peridon, I'll appreciate if you also keep your sarcasm to yourself as I take Wikipedia to be more academic than a social bullying platform.

The reason I'm trying to use my freedom to talk is that I've seen most of the tools we're working alongside of on projects on wikipedia (see: Mendix Documentum Process-driven_application Syncplicity etc.) Our customers are big, they people want to understand the bigger context and you're saying wikipedia should not give them what they are looking for. I can understand if I said it's the best tool for the job or if I put a link to the product web-site but i'm discerning the tool and putting it into context. I honestly think you are merely painting all boxes the same colour here and not granting people freedom. I'm also new to this, you've scared me of 6 years ago, I'm starting to think that I'm not interested to participate as this is simply a censorship club that bully all that will submit to your inconsistent rules. You'rs disillusioned --Boegman (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC) All the best.
 * Sarcasm is something I try to avoid. Dry was the intention. I would suggest another try in user space at User:Boegman/DRAFT - after first reading WP:NSOFT (notability for software) and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources needed to prove it. If you do get at least one or two good references, have a try. Help and advice are available if you get into difficulties - just ask. But don't use words like leverage (under almost any circumstances) and unique (without very reliable proof). Another point: please don't take this the wrong way, but I've read the article at least ten times without getting a real clue to what the 'product' is or what it does. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. We have articles on things that have notability - even one about a bus shelter on a Scottish island has notability shown. We also cater to a wide range of abilities in our readership. Some articles get highly technical - but they do at least give a simple (or perhaps simplistic...) picture of the subject and what it is as well as the hitech stuff. Freedom - on Facebook there's far more freedom. But would you rely on anything there? If we just allowed anyone to post anything, there would be no value in the place at all. If you saw the volume of advertising that gets removed, you might understand. Yours was at the better end of the promo scale. (Or should I say, the apparent promo scale. We can't read the mind of the poster, and words like leverage outside the context of physical levers suggest the PR Dept at work.) But there was also an apparent lack of context. (The 'what is it' factor.) You are very welcome to try again in the way I've suggested. In user space, the patrollers can only tag for hoax, spam, attack or copyright violation. Avoid those, and you are safe to work on it. I can put you onto a very good rescuer (newly made an admin which solves a problem we used to have of her not being able to see the contents of deleted articles) once you've got a start made. Peridon (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate the help.  I'll have to make some time to do this as I can see it will take longer than I was hoping.  I guess it's worth the effort, I'm sure large companies have people that they pay for this.  --Boegman (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They do - and it usually doesn't work. Their PR depts sometimes have bright ideas, and find themselves very quickly reverted... But most of the articles about big companies are really not by them. A Wikipedia article is a drop in the ocean to them, and sometimes a thorn in the flesh as well (if something they'd rather everyone forgot about is in there...). Peridon (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)