User talk:Caltonia

A message of thanks
Someone communicated with me offline (and in confidence) and offered an amazing amount of instruction, support, and an offer to help me learn how to proceed with this process. For that, I'm extremely grateful.

I also want to thank DGG for his encouragement to try again.

It's always better to teach than to troll.

Thanks - you know WHO you are.

Old Discussions
More Response to page deletion: To this point by DGG: I suggest you start again, using from the very first edit references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. try to avoid anything that might be seen as promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is completely biased towards large, public companies and to organizations. Small companies often do not have the luxury of as much online visibility. Some activities are not published or are considered (by others) proprietary information. They can be verified, but not through only online sources. Small companies don't have the political capital to make public things that would lend validation making this kind of validation extremely biased.

--Caltonia (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to page deletion:

I think the speediness of this action is totally biased against small companies and niche technologies. Having less than 1 hour to author an article and respond to a take down notice is simply insufficient, especially when we're not talking about content is clearly spam.

I had the pages open in different windows before it was deleted. It let me capture the following information:

Original article submitted at:
 * Original stub created at: 20:41 6 January 2010 (1)
 * Talk page ("I realize this is only a stub - I'm working on it!") created at: 21:50, 6 January 2010
 * Take down notice given at: 22:31 6 January 2010
 * Initial response drafted at: 22:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted at: 22:38, 6 January 2010

(1) The page has been deleted, so I can't look at the history to determine exactly when I started. I do have a chat message that I sent to a colleague after I submitted the first stub to help me write content that is dated 1:41 PM Pacific Time

Less than 50 minutes to write a complete article.

50 minutes is not enough time to write a complete article if you're not a professional writer and you haven't already got a pre-written piece of content.

Less than 7 minutes to respond to a summary notice.

7 minutes is not sufficient time to give anyone a reasonable chance to both write content to address an issue and write a response to a notice like this. What if I hadn't be saving small changes? I wouldn't have even seen the notice. As it was, I didn't see it in time and it was deleted before my response was even posted.

7 minutes is not enough time to both (1) write a reponse and (2) for an admin to research and verify all the information contained in that response


 * 1. I do not understand why the stub concept isn't available to company profile articles like it is to other topics.
 * 2. I don't understand why individuals are not given time to address issues without summary judgment.
 * 3. 50 minutes is not enough time to write a complete article
 * 4. 7 minutes is not enough time to respond to a notice AND for anyone to research/verify claims in that response.

This short timeline would be fine if we were a large company with a lot of people working on content as their full-time job. It would be nice if there was some sort of middle ground where small companies weren't penalized because they're adding content in pieces as they go. --Caltonia (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Single-Sourcing Solutions
A tag has been placed on Single-Sourcing Solutions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. &mdash; RHaworth 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Status and Advice
As reviewing administrator, I did delete the article, but I suggest you start again, using from the very first edit references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. try to avoid anything that might be seen as promotionalism.  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Time
What's with this crap about "7 minutes is not sufficient time"? Has it not crossed your mind that if you develop an article off-line, you have all the time in the world to perfect it? &mdash; RHaworth 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To RHaworth's point:

Sure, I could, but we're not talking about article creation: we're talking about response to "speedy deletion notice." Don't pretend that the "hang-on" is real. 7 minutes is NOT sufficient time to reply. I could have been editing and repasting and stepped away briefly to use the bathroom or take an emergency phone call.

In addition, as a first-time submitter and not a wikipedia professional, it's going to take me more than 7 minutes just to read and fully understand the take down request without even taking into the amount of time that it takes to construct a proper response/argument.

I stand by my statement that 7 minutes from notice to deletion is ridiculous.

As far as first time content goes: I thought that part of this was that content could be developed overtime? If the rule is to be perfect at initial submission: State it up front. And if company-profile articles CANNOT ever be stubs, state that too. How many stub articles are out there? I'm sorry I wasn't perfect out of the gate first time out. Thanks. You're very encouraging. I'm sure I'll learn a lot from your expert advice, guidance, and teaching.. wait, that was DGG not you.

--Caltonia (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition:

For someone who volunteers as much as I do and who does as much for the communities that I'm in, to be effectively run out on a rail for trying to contribute -- for wanting to learn and to have the chance to get better at it -- I'm stunned.

--Caltonia (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And one more thing:

If I had posted something that was NSFW, for example, sure. I understand needing that kind of speed. But that's not the case here. 7 minutes is not enough time for me to look at the content, read all the pages cited in the take down notice, understand and learn from those pages, and write a response that shows I understand why it's wrong and what I'm going to do to correct it and to propose a timeline of action that I'll commit too.

I can't look at the content now and learn from it either: it's gone.

--Caltonia (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seven minutes is ample time for you to copy your text on to your own computer! &mdash; RHaworth 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To RHaworth:

I respectfully disagree, and, once again, you're sidetracking the issue. You posted a "speedy take down notice" which included (1) instructions for me to read (2) to take action on. It didn't say "Save your work, it'll be gone before you respond anyway, so don't even bother."

In addition, your statement is only true if I happened to still have the text visible in an open window. The fact is, I was reading and responding -- not rescuing the content, I actually believed the notice and that I would be given the opportunity (a) respond and (b) learn something -- but the minute I saved what I was working on I discovered it was already "deleted" and gone. And now I can't even learn from the experience: the content is gone; the notice that said which reg I "violated" is gone. I cannot read either one and I have no opportunity and learn or grow or improve. Thanks.

--Caltonia (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact the true period is 39 minutes between my applying the speedy tag and the article being deleted. What is this crap about "text visible in an open window"? During the time you did five edits. Any one of those states could have been recalled from anywhere during the last seven minutes. &mdash; RHaworth 05:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I get that you disagree, but my point stands. You've refuted no points with structured argument or presented concrete visible evidence. I realize that I've challenged you on something you've an established point of pride on and that it's made you uncomfortable. But honestly there's nothing personal here, this has simply been a mostly one-sided debate that I'm now tired of. Aren't you? --Caltonia (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am tired but &hellip; What points are there that require "refutation with structured argument" and what is there that requires "concrete visible evidence"? You are trying to promote your own company. End of story. &mdash; RHaworth 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything requires documentation. All you did was form an opinion and make unsubstantiated claim. You make my point for me. You made a hasty judgement and aren't willing to consider the fact from any other point of view. Did you read  DGGs comment? He's closer to the truth. --Caltonia (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

COI
Please see our COI policy. Is it appropriate for you to be writing about Single-Sourcing Solutions at all? &mdash; RHaworth 22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was rather surprised that DGG did not spot the COI and warn you. At least you did not do what the most blatant COI-ers do and select a user name that echoes their company name. Please, what is my obvious bias? &mdash; RHaworth 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why did DGG encourage ME to resubmit the same topic? I didn't hide that relationship; I was completely up front about it and made full disclosure, which is exactly what the COI says I should do: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." (COI page).  I certainly hope that your obvious bias in this matter won't prevent my resubmissions should I complete a fair and decent article.  --Caltonia (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reg
If it doesn't trouble you, I would also like a pointer to the reg you cited, so that I actually can understand and learn from the experience. [vie e-mail]
 * Which reg pray? I have had a lot to do recently with Reginald Gray but I don't think you mean him. &mdash; RHaworth 03:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to your email
Thanks for contacting me, I will reply here as I prefer to keep communications on-wiki.

You asked about the deletion of the Arbortext article, and also compared it to XMetaL, saying ''Arbortext is arguably the first commercially available SGML editor. It and XMetaL (whose page is still present: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMetaL) are the two that are the oldest pairs''

Let me try to answer the queries in approximately the order in which they were presented, along with other points I think need to be made:
 * 1) Why was it deleted?
 * 2) * It was deleted for being promotional or advertising in tone (it had previously the same day been deleted as a copyright violation, but this was reverted when it was seen that it did not in fact breach copyright). I looked at past versions of the article, and they were all very similar - a list of products, with no reliable or independent sources
 * 3) Why was it deleted when XMetaL wasn't?
 * 4) * Although it is tempting to compare articles, they are seldom alike enough to make a comparison viable. In this case, the XMetaL article is well-referenced from various reliable independent sources (PC Week, PC Magazine, ZDNET, ertc) - the Arbortext was not
 * 5) 'Arbortext is arguably the first...'
 * 6) * "Arguably" means that there is dispute about the claim! The text in the article says that it was one of the first SGML based editing tools - that in itself is not sufficient to be a claim of significance.
 * 7) Sourcing...
 * 8) * The sourcing provided was either the company's own websites (which do not meet the need for sources to be independent), or were 'fan' pages (which do no meet the need for sources to be reliable (as Wikipedia defines it).
 * 9) Notability...
 * 10) * No evidence in the versions I looked at showed that the company or software meets the general notability criteria
 * 11) 'Adspeak'
 * 12) * The article was full of phrases which appeared to have been copied from ad-copy! For example: Arbortext delivers service information on demand to support processes such as product assembly and operation and service procedures throughout the product’s lifecycle.
 * 13) Content
 * 14) * The content (in the versions of the article this year and last - previous ones were basically a list of products) consisted of a long list of products (Wikipedia is not a directory for a company's products) and a history of the company/products (none of which was referenced at reliable, independent sources)

Overall, the layout of the article was that of an advertising leaflet, and so not acceptable in Wikipedia.

In order to be considered for recreation, we would need to see evidence of notability - in the form of sources which are reliable and independent, which can verify any information provided, and demonstrate that it meets the notability criteria.

I hope this will explain more fully why it was deleted!

Incidentally, I note that you are very much connected with Arbortext ("Secretary, charter member, providing logistical and administrative support for first Arbortext PTC/User group", "Provides technical and infrastructure support for Arbortext Code archive at adepters.org", "First podcaster to address Arbortext community's need for knowledge sharing", etc) - so you potentially have a conflict of interest. If you haven't already done so, might I suggest that you read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines?

'''Might I suggest you look at what I contributed? Yes, I'm part of the USER GROUP. A group which receives ZERO FUNDING AND ZERO SUPPORT from PTC/Arbortext. Please, read below my question as to 'who cares enough to write about it'. I volunteer a significant portion of my time to that user group and support the education and growth of users in that community (activities for which I receive no compensation). I push hard to make sure there are resources out there so that users don't have to pay top dollar to PTC or any other consultant and can still get their jobs done. If I'm the only one who cares to write about it (and I KNOW I wasn't the ONLY contributor), then why shouldn't I be the one who writes it. As you said in the response about Visix: Yeah, none of those engineers care enough to write about their experience. But, given how you've responded to me -- a user -- I can't see that you'd accept an article from any of them either anyway.'''

If you have any other questions, please feel free to either respond here or on my talk page - I'd prefer that to email, as I like my Wikipedia communications to be open!

Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Further response to emails
As I said above, you can respond on this page (just edit the section just like you edit articles).

REPLIES INLINE

Again, I'll try to respond to what you wrote on your emails (it would be a lot easier if you had written here, so other people can see exactly what I am responding to! However, I assume you have no objection to my quoting exactly from the three emails sent between 14/08/2011 17:28 - 14/08/2011 17:36)


 * 1) "If those were the objections, why weren't those objections posted so they could be corrected rather than summarily deleted?"
 * 2) * Speedy deletion is valid in the case of an article which is promotional or advert-like in nature (see here) - as such, no discussion is required. My role in this was to see the tagged article (on a list at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion), look at the article and compare that with the reason for which it was nominated for speedy deletion. Part of that was looking at the history to see if there was an older version which would be suitable for reversion. In this case, there was not, and the reason for deletion was valid, and so I deleted it.

I've only asked why you think that this applies in this case as of today as compared to all the many other similar pages


 * 1) "Second - "arguable' exactly. Why is the debate reason for deletion, isn't that part of the historical record or shouldn't it be?"
 * 2) * As mentioned above, speedy deletion does not necessarily require discussion or debate, and indeed the very nature of "speedy deletion" is that it is generally, well, speedy!

Still haven't answered my question


 * 1) "Third - as I mentioned, if it had been all marketed-speak up, why not restore it to an earlier version, post  the objection, so someone (not part of ptc) come and fix it and make it less so? Isn't part of the point to make that happen?"
 * 2) * Looking through the history, I didn't find a previous version which was not substantially the same (i.e. a list of products with a history, none of which was referenced). If there had been a suitable version to revert to, I could have considered that. As to who is or is not part of ptc, none of the user names were obviously ptc-linked - in fact the only user name which led to a link to Arbortext was yours!
 * 3) Your next email began "One of the things that was most interesting about Arbortext is that it was originally based on the Visix Galaxy platform  (All trace of which as been removed from wikipedia when that article was condensed into the Arbortext one.)" and discussed the importance of Galaxy. You also said "I know a lot of the old Visix engineers who worked on Galaxy and not one of them cares enough to write a history of programming languages much less the one they worked on."
 * 4) * The fact that Visix Galaxy has no article does not help the case for the significance of Arbortext. The only mention of Galaxy appears to be at List of platform-independent GUI libraries. The fact that no one cares enough to write a history doesn't say much for its notability! I'll admit that the information is interesting, but not sufficient to show that Arbortext is notable enough for an article

'''In the same breath, you say -- it should be excluded because no one cares enough to write about it and then you tell me that i'm the only one who cares enough to write about Arbortext (and it's history) and that's not good enough. Then you put this link to Visix in this page, making it look like a broken, page desired, link and, as I already told you, one of your colleagues already decided that this was not worth having a page for as they summarily deleted it as well. Which is it?'''


 * 1) "Fourth - Industry citations. Dude, there are a lot of them, including numerous articles from OASIS (the standards body) which is a far better source than PC Magazine (that's all paid ad copy as we both know)."
 * 2) * Firstly, as a charter member of OASIS, people could question the independence of OASIS - they are "a trade association of SGML tool vendors to cooperatively promote the adoption of SGML" after all; as to PC Magazine etc, paid ad copy would not be independent (effectively being from the company), but editorial commentary by the magazine's own staff would. Looking at your last version (as of 24 March 2010, at 15:46) I didn't see any of the sources used which would meet the independent, reliable source criteria

'''So you're saying that articles by the W3C about HTML would also be considered suspect and not evidence of reason for inclusion? or that articles by the IETF, an internationally recognized standards body are also considered suspect because all the members are from industry?'''


 * 1) "Fifth - Notability? Isn't that point #2 (the arguable #1 or #2 commercially available SGML editor) notable?"
 * 2) * If reliable independent sources showed that it was #1 or #2 then perhaps it would be notable - but there were no such sources in any of the versions which I looked at. "Arguably" presumably means that there is no consensus at reliable sources as to this fact - otherwise there would be no argument!


 * 1) Your third email said "ANd one more thing. Arbortext and XMetal were developed in the mid-80s. There's very little evidence that is currently online to support which one was first. Either way, it's significant to note that these were the first two and it's hard to say who was first."
 * 2) * Again, there is no evidence that it was one of the first two (the article itself does not even say that, it said "one of the first"). Sources do not have to be online to be acceptable. Offline sources (newspapers, magazines, books, etc) are perfectly acceptable - but they must be independent (eg not written by an employee of the company, a member of a "fan club" organisation or published by the company or its associates) and meet the reliable source criteria. If you can name some of those (including publication dates, and preferably with page numbers) then we could go from there.

All in all, I see no reason to believe that the deletion was in error. I also see no evidence that it would meet the notability criteria (please note that it was not deleted for that reason, it was deleted as it appeared to be a promotional article - or product catalog! - rather than an encyclopedic entry).

Again, as a big "fan" of the company/products, you have a potential conflict of interest, but I can understand why you think it is notable, and why you think that it should not have been deleted.

If you still think that I was wrong to delete the article, then you can go to Deletion review and ask for the community to discuss whether the reason for deletion (i.e. Criteria for Speedy Deletion (CSD) G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc. See WP:NOTPROMOTION for the policy on this. as the CSD criteria says).

The community would have approximately a week to discuss whether it should have been deleted or not - if the consensus is that it should not have been deleted, then it would be restore (although I should point out that this does not prevent an editor from nominating it for deletion under other procedures: Proposal for deletion or Articles for deletion).

Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

ps if you want to respond to me, please do so on this page rather than by email! - just edit this section and add your reply at the bottom of the section, just like editing an article to add information  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 20:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to you
Answers in bold, interleaved in your reply.

Quite frankly, my issue is that I think there's a tendency to be overly speedy and not request pages be improved. There were, in fact, many citations on that page that you decided to just ignore.

As a matter of fact, it's in my best interest NOT to have an Arbortext page in Wikipedia: then, when anyone searches for it, the user group or I become the main source for all information about it. And that's good for me. But here I am arguing for it's inclusion. Right, you caught me. I've put.. hm, no links back to me, my business, the user group, anything of the type in the article. Again. Caught me. Uh.. wait, no you didn't.

It's not my fight, I think you were overly hasty, and I'm done. It's useless arguing with any of you -- It's been made 100% clear over and over that you all are not to be overruled. By anyone.

You say.. "As a big 'fan' of company products" ... Nice to see that the only people who are interested are considered invalid sources. As I mentioned: it's not my fight. You don't know me, so apply your prejudices to someone else.
 * "Interested people" are not automatically bad sources - but they need to be independent and meet the criteria for reliable sources!
 * If you believe that the community in general would agree with you that I was wrong to delete the article, then I would strongly recommend taking the deletion to deletion review. I have explained my reasoning, but it is possible that I am wrong (I'm human, I make mistakes!) - I don't think I am mistaken in this case, but that's not a neutral viewpoint!
 * If you were to look at my history, you will find several instances where I have disagreed with the tagging of an article for speedy deletion. This was not one of those occasions, but I understand your annoyance with the situation. If you wish to go to review, I would be interested in seeing how it goes - if the community agrees with me, Wikipedia "wins" by not having an article which does not meet the criteria for inclusion. If the community decides the article should be restored, Wikipedia "wins" by having an article restored which should not have been speedily deleted, and I learn more about what the community wants. Whatever the result, Wikipedia benefits.
 * Although you are obviously not feeling too happy about my responses, should you want help or advice on other articles or editing, you are welcome to contact me - just go to my talk page and click on the "leave a new message" link near the top of the page. Regards, --  Phantom Steve .alt/ talk \[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

'''Quite frankly, your procedures require too much time for me than I have to give. I already spend a huge portion of my time volunteering for, well, too many projects and organizations. I really do not see what the point is for me to go through a lengthy, combative process, especially since it's generally fruitless. I can also thank you for convincing me that it's pointless to participate in this community. I may have to change my status WRT the Wikipedia organization.

If you could please send me a copy of the page as it was before it was deleted, I'd appreciate it.'''
 * I have emailed you the last pre-speedy-deletion-tag version (as of 16:26, 22 April 2011).
 * I am sorry that you are disillusioned, I hate to see anyone leave Wikipedia - although I understand your reasons, albeit I disagree with it! If you change your mind, you can always decided at a future time to go to deletion review and request the community review my decision - there is no "statute of limitations" on that!
 * In the meantime, may I wish you success with all your endeavours, and I hope to see you editing in the future
 * Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

'''Thanks for sending me a copy of the last version. Seeing the last version of it (and how PTC Marketing obviously changed it). I agree with you that it's sufficiently vapid. However, I think it should have been rolled back rather than deleted, but that's my opinion. (Back when I wrote as much as I ever had time to do, which was more than a year ago I'm sure, I listed the products because earlier incarnations had it defined (in the first sentence) as an "XML Editor". It's a common misconception, so I changed the text to list that it's really a family of products. We in the community get this question all the time from people who are investigating it and I figured it was worth clarifying in this page).'''  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.124.165 (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

'''PS - I was most interested in getting the reflist because I had links in there that I use frequently... any chance of getting those?''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.124.165 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

'''If I may ask one more favor, can you look back into the history and pull the content about Visix & Galaxy and send it to me as well? This was the last place it was documented and I used it as a reference for that information. Thanks.'''