User talk:Chnacat

Removing templates
Hello, please stop removing Wikipedia maintainance templates from the Aldona article without a good reason and without correcting the issues they point out. Repeatedly doing so can be considered vandalism. Thank you. -- intgr 07:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Aldonlogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aldonlogo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 19:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-post of Aldon
Hello, please do not repost articles that have been deleted in the past, without changing any of the content. -- intgr 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to your e-mail saying: "i reposted the aldon page after changing almost all of the content."
 * I admit that I don't really remember how similar it was to the previous article, but in any case, it read like a sales brochure and not an encyclopedia entry, as did the previous version. Please make yourself comfortable with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before attempting another post of the article.
 * Also, please note that Wikipedia editors normally prefer to be contacted on their user talk pages, and not by e-mail. -- intgr 21:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I received another e-mail from you.


 * "i tried to contact you on your talk page, but got no response (this was the first time you deleted our page, quite a while ago)"
 * I do not recall any messages left on my talk page, User talk:Intgr, by you. If you look at the history of my talk page, or the archive, you can see that there are no edits made by the user "Chnacat".


 * > "''we are not trying to post a sales brochure.  our competitors have wiki pages and we just want to be able to post our information.  can you please tell me why these are acceptable (and have not been deleted)


 * > ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perforce
 * > ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_Versions_System
 * > ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccuRev%28vcs%29
 * > ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearCase
 * > ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Source_Safe


 * > and ours is not? i would appreciate any help you can offer."


 * First, as per the conflict of interest Wikipedia guideline, you are not supposed to edit articles about your company in the first place! And more importantly, you should not treat Wikipedia as an advertising medium; your "competitor X has an article, so why can't we?" attitude is an obvious hint here.


 * Second, with the exception of AccuRev, because they read more like encyclopedia articles, not like advertisements (although they're far from satisfactory in my opinion). I do not have a copy of the Aldon article for reference, but I can recall the Aldon article being worse than what AccuRev was before my recent edits. The speedy deletion criteria, which Aldon was deleted under, states "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic."; articles tagged for speedy deletion are reviewed by two people &mdash; first by the user who tags it for deletion, and second by the administrator who actually deletes it.


 * Even though I do not advise you to do so due to a conflict of interest, if you really want to write a proper article, please make sure you have read and understood the relevant Wikipedia policies, starting at WP:NPOV, WP:A, WP:N, WP:POV and WP:MOS. No doubt these guidelines will seem confusing at first, and subjects where you have a conflict of interest make a bad starting point. Writing good encyclopedic articles is not an easy task (and that's part of the reason why I spend most of my time bitching about others' articles ;).
 * If you wish to contest the deletion, you can do so at WP:DELREV, though I do not expect any chance of the old article being restored.


 * Have a nice day. -- intgr 18:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper method
Dear Chnacat,

I neglected to use the four tildes in my sign off a few moments ago. Please find them below.

Urchin22 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents of the post referred to in "proper method"
Dear Chnacat,

Thank you for your assistance with our submission. I had asked my colleague for her help posting the Aldon content because she is skilled with HTML. I'm afraid I didn't know you were being contacted in ways you don't prefer, nor did I know that maintenance templates were being removed. Wikipedia is a great resource, and I can understand that it requires vigilance to keep it so. I hope this is the appropriate method and medium through which to communicate with you.

I have read your comments and suggestions carefully. I have also read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. To address the conflict of interest issue, I am now working with an outside consultant to help us devise a suitable entry describing Aldon in Wikipedia.

Thank you in advance for any further help you can provide.

C.

Urchin22 23:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)