User talk:Marcus pipo

Viscosity Article
Hi Marcus. Thanks for posting your question on my talk page. As a general rule I try to avoid edit wars, so I was very hesitant to delete your link the second time. In general for a link to a commercial web site is allowed in external link sections if it has a wealth of information that can not otherwise be included in the article, or if the article is about the commercial web site or company in question. Neither of these are true in this case. See WP:EL, Conflict_of_interest and WP:Spam.

I did delete it for a few reasons. First of all it has very little info of encyclopedeaic quality, especially if you are looking for information regarding viscosity without look for means of measuring viscosity. In general a link like this belongs more in the viscometer article, if it belongs anywhere. The only fact on the sofrasier website I see as being verifiable is that the vibrating viscometers require less maintenence.

Secondly, the web site you are linking to is poorly organized, and features bad grammer. Any wikipedian who follows it might be turned off to any information contained in the web site by its poor organization.

Thirdly the web site you are linking to appears to me to be non-neutral in point of view. Obviously any company is going to want to show their products in the best light possible, but this comes at the expense of a neautral point of view.

Fourthly, there are a ton of ways of measuring viscosity, and the page you are linking to only has meaningful information on a few of them. If it included lots of information about simple viscometers, capillary rheometers/plastometers, extrusion plastometers, and other forms of viscosity measurement I might be more likely to accept it's inclusion in this article.

Finally I removed it becuase the majority of edits you have done under your user name on wikipedia are related to finding ways to link to the SOFRASER web site. I felt like this was corroberating evidence to show that the link was spam, as it seemed like your main goal is directing traffic to the sofraser web site.

All that being said, I am a resonable person, and I am open to trying to resolve this issue in a fair manner. I wonder if we should put it to a vote on the talk page for the viscosity article. Also we could try asking a few admins for thier opinion of wether it should be included or not. Let me know what you think, and thanks again for posting on my talk page. I was a little worried about simply getting into an edit war. For now I will not delete the article again until after I have heard your response, and/or gotten a second opinion from a third party. CoolMike 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mike,

Thank you very much for your reply. I am really happy to have this discussion with you and I understand fully your point of view. As you I am a reasonable person and I will try to do my best to solve this problem. Actually I am agree with you on some points.

“The web site is poorly organized”

Yes you are right and I am honest actually it is an old version. We are making a new one with a lot of informations concerning dynamic, kinematic and index viscosity in order to share the Sofraser experience. But I am not agree with you when you wrote :

“Any wikipedian who follows it might be turned off to any information contained in the web site by its poor organization.”

According to my website statistics and to be honest with you, this link generates 50 visits / month. But this visitors spent 10 minutes to read the content that’s, as you know, widely higher than other websites. So, it means just people interesting in viscosity measurement by vibrating technology visit the Sofraser website. I think that increases the level of the viscosity article. This is a win win relationship. As you, I do not want fighting and spend a lot of energy for 50 visitors but the viscosity industry is very small just several companies manufacture these kind of system. So don’t worry about Spam from others because it is very easy to recognize if it is a trading company or a real manufacturer with his own technology.

“Thirdly the web site you are linking to appears to me to be non-neutral in point of view”

I think yes, all commercial websites are “non-neutral”. But on this it you can see just the technical informations and the principle of the vibrating technology. It is not really a marketing website as other because they were developed by Engineers and not by a marketing department. So this website focus just on the technical points. It is a site dedicated to experts not for common visitor.

“Fourthly, there are a ton of ways of measuring viscosity, and the page you are linking to only has meaningful information on a few of them. If it included lots of information about simple viscometers, capillary rheometers/plastometers, extrusion plastometers, and other forms of viscosity measurement I might be more likely to accept it's inclusion in this article”.

In fact there are not “a ton of ways” for viscosity measurement. You have two parts -Process measurement and laboratory measurement. Actually the vibrating technology had been developed for process industry because of the high shear rate that can influence the viscosity (such as pump, elbow pipe etc…). Rotational, capillary, falling ball systems are for laboratory because of the low shear. Actually you can’t compare viscometer to rheometer the purpose is really not the same. Viscometers measure the viscosity in order to check the texture of the cheese for example. It is mainly dedicated to final quality check. A rheometer is a system that can change the shear rate to understand what is the rheological behaviour of your product if you change the condition.

“Finally I removed it because the majority of edits you have done under your user name on wikipedia are related to finding ways to link to the SOFRASER web site”.

Yes I just noticed this point and I was sure that you will tell me this argument. In fact I used mainly different IP addresses because I travel a lot without log directly on my count. But now I will try always to log before editing something. I am not a spamer and I understand your point of view. (can you check this user reg11 and let me know if is he a good member ?)

As you I am a reasonable person and I really want reply to you. To conclude, I ask you if you can let this link for a while. We are developing a new website well organized and with a lot of informations about viscosity. I think it will be ready in one or two months. Do you think it is a good solution to solve this small conflict ?

Best regards

Alright, you convinced me. I'll let the link be for a while. I think you are correct that it is really not spam, but as far as how much useful information it contains I will let the readers decide that for themselves. Thanks for the reply. CoolMike 12:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CoolMike that you are spamming the viscometer page. You reverted my edits without any discussion or justification. I was good enough to give my reasons for my edits on the discussion page, but you chose to ignore them. I am in favor of submitting this to arbitration. I am quite familiar with the vibrating viscometer business and would far prefer to see a true encyclopedic article than an advertisement for SOFRASER. Diogenes 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SOFRASER


The article SOFRASER has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced article on a manufacturer. There does not appear to be in-depth coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and there is no equivalent article on the French Wikipedia."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)