User talk:Sccasey

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Sccasey! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! NAHID 14:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hello, I am trying to reach Hu12 and any other editors contributing to the AfD for expressor-- to engage in the discussion offered. I have posted comments on the relevant AfD page, following up on the initial flurry of comments last week related to the 12/3 AfD, but have not yet received any direct responses. I would like to request that the expressor page be reverted to the version I edited on 12/1 -- for the reasons stated in my comments on the AfD page and expanded upon here: all of my edits on 12/1 were made after careful consideration of the original AfD note posted 11/24, to address objectivity and notability. I carefully studied the relevant Wikipedia sections on these topics, then examined the Wikipedia pages for several of the company's competitors, and modeled my edits on two "successful" (non-AfD) pages (Talend, Informatica) that seemed especially relevant for the objections raised. In some cases, I even used the same language used on the pages of the company's competitors. And I sought to add references to as many objective, third-party, secondary sources as possible -- as specified in the notability guidelines. It appears from the discussion on the AfD page for expressor that major components of the objections to my edits are that I am affiliated with the company and deemed an SPA. Both are true -- but my reading of the SPA and objectivity guidelines is that these facts should not automatically disqualify my edits; rather my edits on expressor should be judged by the same objective measures as any other editor's changes. I am an active user of Wikipedia for research on personal interests, and support this project wholeheartedly. Which is why I have tried to uphold the objectivity guidelines in my edits to expressor -- with the goal of providing a knowledgeable description of arcane technology. I welcome this opportunity for dialog, especially on any specific points regarding specific edits – so that we can all reach consensus on a better expressor Wikipedia page than is currently posted.

Expressor software

 * http://.expressor-software.com
 * Accounts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Expressor
An article that you have been involved in editing, Expressor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to reach Hu12 and any other editors contributing to the AfD for expressor-- to engage in the discussion offered. I have posted comments on the relevant AfD page, following up on the initial flurry of comments last week related to the 12/3 AfD, but have not yet received any direct responses. I would like to request that the expressor page be reverted to the version I edited on 12/1 -- for the reasons stated in my comments on the AfD page and expanded upon here: all of my edits on 12/1 were made after careful consideration of the original AfD note posted 11/24, to address objectivity and notability. I carefully studied the relevant Wikipedia sections on these topics, then examined the Wikipedia pages for several of the company's competitors, and modeled my edits on two "successful" (non-AfD) pages (Talend, Informatica) that seemed especially relevant for the objections raised. In some cases, I even used the same language used on the pages of the company's competitors. And I sought to add references to as many objective, third-party, secondary sources as possible -- as specified in the notability guidelines. It appears from the discussion on the AfD page for expressor that major components of the objections to my edits are that I am affiliated with the company and deemed an SPA. Both are true -- but my reading of the SPA and objectivity guidelines is that these facts should not automatically disqualify my edits; rather my edits on expressor should be judged by the same objective measures as any other editor's changes. I am an active user of Wikipedia for research on personal interests, and support this project wholeheartedly. Which is why I have tried to uphold the objectivity guidelines in my edits to expressor -- with the goal of providing a knowledgeable description of arcane technology. I welcome this opportunity for dialog, especially on any specific points regarding specific edits – so that we can all reach consensus on a better expressor Wikipedia page than is currently posted.(Sccasey (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC))