User talk:ElodieAndco

Welcome!

Hello, ElodieAndco, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

February 2012
Just thought I'd let you know that notifications for other editors (like at AnthillPro) should be made using hidden text instead of regular text. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
ElodieAndco (talk)

Also, you may want to create a sandbox for yourself so that you don't have to use User:ElodieAndco for that purpose. Cheers! Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

AnthillPro Article Update
Thanks for your assistance in my novice stages of editing articles on wikipedia. While I am no stranger to writing articles of this type, the wikipedia interface and form is proving to be confusing and time consuming. Sorry, it is taking a bit of time to collect the resources, awards, citations and so on from UrbanCode to update the AnthillPro article. I thank you all for your patience, and your guidance / assistance in this effort. ElodieAndco (talk)ElodieAndco (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How to make inline citations
Instructions can be found at WP:INCITE. Citations can be typed manually or made with a citation template. Alternatively, you could use ProveIt, a program that takes information about a source (author, url, etc) and turns it into a citation for you. It available to all registered Wikipedia editors (I use it myself). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Also, you don't have to sign your edit summaries. You can tell by looking at any page's history (such as AnthillPro's history) who made each contribution. Regards, Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to your questions
As for your objection to the deletion of the AnthillPro article: even if the software was obsolete or a piece of freeware, that wouldn't matter for notability: what matters is how much coverage AnthillPro has received in certain kinds of sources. From Notability:

So, does AnthillPro meet this? I would say yes. The coverage from SD Times is in-depth and also appears to be reliable and independent of Urbancode. I don't own "Continuous Delivery" by Jez Humble and David Farley, but if the coverage of AnthillPro in the book is in-depth as well, then you have an excellent case for keeping the article. Single mentions such as in this CM Crossroads article do not establish notability, but once notability is established by the other sources, it is fine to use single mentions for supplementary information.

As for my editor review, it was technically supposed to close on Feb. 8, but it looks like it's still open, so comment if you wish. You would place your comments under the bold "Reviews" text.

Hope this helped! Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the correct policy to look to this time is Article titles. While there is no particular policy for software titles, it seems that the title "AnthillPro" by itself should be descriptive and recognizable enough. I doubt there's anything else that goes by the name of AnthillPro, so adding "(software)" to the end of the title shouldn't be necessary. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I did remove some of the awards in this edit because they seemed like awards for UrbanCode, not AnthillPro in particular. I apologize if I was mistaken, and if I was, they can easily be restored. As for the Gartner quotes and refs, I think that hidden text (Help:Hidden text) could help. You could use it to briefly describe Gartner's terms and politely tell other editors to leave the parts referenced to the Gartner articles alone.

And finally, the lists. I'm not so sure on this one. The detail would be appreciated, but the list could easily dwarf the page. I'd suggest listing the most important customers/integrating products, if any. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the quotes, you should probably just stage them on your talk page. I think that would be the simplest way. In addition to factual quotes, it would suggest paraphrasing some of the information (too many quotes could get out of control). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If the edits by the user with a close connection no longer have influence in the article, there's nothing wrong with being bold, going ahead and removing the template yourself. I've removed it for you. Cheers! Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

from the deletion debate 2/21/12
It was the first or second such tool of its kind depending on which source you believe(proved and agreed upon) but more importantly, over the past ten years, it has consistently extended it's features and automation capabilities and its ability to integrate with virtually all the other point tools and third party tools in the software build, test, deploy, and release world (I thought I had this part proved).
 * This this software automation tool is notable for a number of reasons. If I haven't expressed them yet, it is because I have been working on "proving" them.

UrbanCode is a very small company, and they have only has 400 customers, but look at who the customers are 25 are fortune 100 and the rest are extremely large.(I had to use press releases from UrbanCode for proof on this, but I could probably quote a couple of the awards that they have won for the same information. Meanwhile, the big companies quote their own press releases and publications on wikipedia.) The software is deployed all over the world. In 2012, AnthillPro is used by extremely large companies/enterprises to do continuous integration on thousands of builds each day and they deploy software to tens of thousand of servers every day.(this is the part that has been hard to get a printed citation on because these companies don't want to talk about it, and there aren't very many case studies being commissioned.) I am adding book citations and new article sections now. It has been a long process to go through so many books. I really had not imagined that I would need to create another 20 or so book citations, to make the "noteability" point. AnthillPro is acknowledged in the software development particularly Agile development as a shining example of CI and what CI can grow up to become.

There are plenty of citations out there for me to gather, but there are already plenty of citations in this article. It seems to me that this process is not objective. Do I need to add quotes by the book citations? I think I just need enough time to work my way though the rewrite

As for the citations that I have provided. The web based citations on this article are in keeping with citations on software articles in general. I selected this mix (mol), 4 books, 5 web articles, 2 white papers and 1 press release from UrbanCode (web), 4 product reviews(web) and 4 awards, -- based on simular articles which appear to be well written, and cited, and have no warning banners, or threats of deletion at their top. Perhaps, this is only because the razors have not seen them yet? There are several more books waiting for me to create the citations.

And by the way Czarkoff, which "news site frequently seen here (at AfD) as a last resort for non-notable stuff." are you talking about?

Articles for deletion/AnthillPro
I closed the discussion as keep, but please continue to work on it. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More comments on Anthill Pro
Notability is not really my axe to grind; prose style is. My perennial issue with articles of this type is, first, that they often appear to be written by people in public relations departments, rather than the technical people who could actually explain why they think the subject belongs in an encyclopedia. A related problem is that they are written from a cybercentric viewpoint and launch immediately into jargon that is either misleading or unintelligible. The jargon itself often has a tone problem, because at least some of it is coined by PR people.

I changed the lead paragraph because I found the description "continuous integration server" mildly (and no doubt unintentionally) misleading. In my mind's eye a server is a box that's part of the internet's hardware structure, and the product wasn't one of those. I attempted to supply a description in English of what I understood the product actually was and did. My text probably reads like the obvious maunderings of a clueless idiot to people who actually use this program. Go ahead and improve it if you can, but try to explain it in English.

I've flagged a number of other portions for attention. The rest of the lead paragraph links to a number of quite awful articles (Something-Something Management is a particular swamp of despair) and isn't really clear as a description of how these things represent additions to the software's capabilities. I've flagged a number of perceived problem areas. Now that the AfD is over, I don't see it necessary to add a list of trade awards, either; frankly, I think lists of them make the article look like you're clutching at straws for notability, and I'm willing to accept the judgment at AFD that the subject is in fact notable.

Going to crosspost this to the article's talk page. Probably best to focus on the live article, just so discussions are all in one place. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)