Talk:Novacam Technologies

The claim about the uniqueness of fiber-based by Novacam Technology is false. For example, Lumetrics, Inc. also markets fiber-based metrology equipment, with fiber detector probes, since 2002. FYI00 (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

BrE / AmE spelling?

Since this is a Canadian company, shouldn't words like "fiber" and "specializes" be spelt "fibre" and "specialises", as per BrE? Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 12:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they use Canadian spelling which includes fiber as seen on their company website: [1]. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fair enough and I should have looked at their website before querying! Thanks for that. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 09:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Although it is quite true that Novacam Technologies is a tiny company with perhaps only 5 employees or so (see the Akama business directory), I oppose speedy deletion because the nominator, user:FYI00, appears to be a sockpuppet of User:Lumetrics, who earlier today had disruptively edited the article Interferometry (of which I am the principal editor) by placing a speedy delete notice on Interferometry simply because reference number 86 in that article pointed to information on the Novacam web site. User:Lumetrics clearly derived his user name from Lumetrics, an optical measurement company that works in a similar market space as Novacam. I have no stake in keeping the Novacam article in Wikipedia, but I would prefer that the nomination for speedy deletion not be made by one of its competitors.

If Lumetrics had an article on Wikipedia, I would quite happily nominate BOTH companies for speedy deletion, since Lumetrics is a very small company, with only about 17 employees (see the BuzzFile report). Unfortunately it doesn't have a wiki entry. --Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Username FYI00 has been registered in 2012, with no intent for deception. On contrary, the username Lumetrics was created and used to provide transparency in company's position. Unfortunately, the person who registered Lumetrics username did not have any experience with Wikipedia, and I apologize for his careless actions towards the Interferometry page. I respect the administrator's concern about a competitor nominating a page for a speedy deletion, however the reason for speedy deletion for this article is evident without the involvement of a competitor. Having a Wikipedia article, references to their website within the Interferometry page, and dubious claims of uniqueness, is an obvious effort by Novacam to promote its rankings within the search engines. Can we resolve the issue without the wasteful effort of creating a Wikipedia Lumetrics page? FYI00 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not balance one competitor with another. We cover all subjects according to their notability and the sources available. In an article, we make references to the most suitable material. Normally, we of course prefer non-proprietary peer-reviewed articles, but for technical subjects, technical literature from companies in the field often provide good sources & for some specific topics, unique sources. We choose them by their quality, and usefulness in the article, not which company they come from. We are not concerned about balancing advertising value, or link count, or such matters. We are concerned with article quality. In any case, I point out that all links from WP are tagged as nofollow--see this discussion. This pretty much avoids the effect of linkspam,

The current question is the relative value of refs. 72 and 73 in the current version This is to be decided by people without a conflict of interest who are knowledgable about the subject.

Since you have an admitted conflict of interest, you may not add references to materials your own company has produced. This is one of the basic rules respecting WP:COI and people who persist in doing so are always blocked. The only acceptable way for you to add a reference to material from your company is to suggest it on the talk page of the article, and let neutral editors decide. Your addition of the link was highly improper; I however assume you did not realize it. The two links will now have to be discussed, and what is expected in the discussion is that you will stay out of it. Your role is to find a good reference, and suggest it to us--this can be a very helpful role in calling attention to useful material that you have good reason to know about, and such suggestions are always in order--as suggestions.

I myself have only a very elementary knowledge of the subject, and will not involve myself in the discussion, but the article talk page is the place. Where I will involve myself as an administrator is in blocking you if you add such links or remove links to a competitor. (I am copying this warning to your user talk page), DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)