User talk:RaveX

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, 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, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Bonewah (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2009 (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

G-20 Summit Nixle
If "the use of a product does not rise to the standards of inclusion in an encyclopedia," why are you allowing the use of Humvee, Blackhawk, and Chinook products from Boeing, Skiorsky, and AM General? Stop deleting my posts. 71.138.69.190 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I repeat that the simple use of a product does not rise to the standards of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The reason that those products were included is (I assume) that they are NPOV evidence of a particular level of security. The use of your company's product is not; therefore it should not be included, just as the manufacturer of the police uniforms is not mentioned. Be warned, further additions will be marked as spam. RaveX (talk)

NPOV evidence of a particular level of security would include Nixle as well. It shows that all of these agencies on the Federal, State, and Local levels were coordinated. Without Nixle, this coordination would not have occurred. Just as (I assume) without Boeing, visual data would not have been as useful. Wikipedia is an open source (or so I thought) encyclopedia that presents relevant information to its readers. If public safety coordination isn't relevant to the "security" section of this entry, than what is exactly? Danny Gosser (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No response? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Gosser (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I will respond, but you left your comment too late last night for me to get to it, and I've had a busy morning, thank you. RaveX (talk)

Thank you for your patience, I have a few comments for you on this matter. First, I'll like to address your particular point, and then I'll offer a few comments about appropriate use of Wikipedia.

Regarding the level of security: The use of military troops and equipment, which was notable enough to receive coverage in one of Pittsburgh's two largest newspapers, is indicative of the level of security, which is of general interest (as indicated by the fact that it received coverage in a major newspaper). The use of a particular company's product is not of general interest, nor is it a necessary or sufficient condition to establish coordination— believe it or not, different law enforcement agencies have managed to coordinate their activities without the use of this company's product.

Regarding your choice of references: You'll notice that the other information included in that section came from the two largest newspapers in Pittsburgh and the Associated Press. You offered two links, one to a blog post on the website of a trade magazine, and one to a press release by the company itself, which was fed through PR Newswire, aggregated by COMTEX, and fed to the Fox Business website. The first is not of interest to the general public. The second simply isn't a news story, and it's not evidence of notability.

To provide a relevant comparison, one could argue that it's important that we mention that Verizon upgraded its voice and data network prior to the summit, because if it hadn't done so, communications would not have been reliable. This (though the press release was carried for a time on the WSJ's website), like the information about Nixle, is irrelevant to an article about the G-20 summit, and like Nixle, it's not included.

I'd like to also suggest that you review Wikipedia's policies regarding single-user accounts and conflicts of interest. I say this because I notice that you've made hundreds of edits, almost all of which are involved with the pages you've created, each of which is related to Nixle and its employees. You've made almost no constructive edits not involving this very narrow area of interest. If you look at the list under "how not to be a spammer", you'll notice that the creation of those pages appears to be in conflict with number 4, and the fact that you're having this argument with me right now is a result of the fact that you're currently running afoul of number 5. You may wish to take this very seriously; after all:

Furthermore, some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely, [including] accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. 

Thank you again for your patience in waiting for a response. I hope we can consider this matter settled.

RaveX (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make Wikipedia have more relevancy between pages. Danny Gosser (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit in Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences
You made this edit:. Why? You noted my edit was good faith, but didn't give a reason for your revert. Fresheneesz (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Störm  (talk)  18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)