User talk:Haakon/Archive3

@full disk encryption article,

You removed my refs because you evaluated them to be spam. Under what conditions would you consider such references not spam. I am trying to understand better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knguyeniii (talk • contribs) 04:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of RTorrent

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is RTorrent. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RTorrent. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay

Hey, just noticed you reverted the new slogan. I was not the one to make the edit, but the slogan you reverted is in the title of every page thus making it appear it is their new slogan. As for reference, any page on the pirate bay would suffice. Generally on Wikipedia if something is true but not referenced the correct course of action is to put the references in, not revert it. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I had in mind The Pirate Bay's tendency to change parts of their sites as a gimmick, such as their logo, and then change back after a little while. I also didn't think a reference to the Pirate Bay itself would be valid, as it's not independent of the subject, and it's not a tertiary source, but I suppose there's a point where common sense comes into play as well. Haakon (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding RHUB

RHUB is a notable company in the industry. I have carefully followed the templates and tone from other companies in the same industry, particularly ReadyTalk, which seems fully complying with Wikipedia. Please advise me what languages in the writing are considered as spam. Any edition from you would be very much appreciated. Please don't consider my RHUB article as a spam simply because someone else made a mistake in writing an article about RHUB.

Jmao1 (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability has to be demonstrated through citations of significant sources. Haakon (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I added "Awards/Recognitions" as ReadyTalk does to improve the notability. Thank you for the feedback! Jmao1 (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put my article "under construction". I do need help from editors to make my article work. I have done everything I can by following a good Wikipedia article. Your assistance is much appreciated. Jmao1 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What is http://www.socialmedian.com/story/8473361/rhub? I won't spend my time for that! I cannot correct it either. Jmao1 (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a Google hit on the exact verbage in the article, but I see now that the site was actually a Wikipedia mirror, so I made an error and threw around a false accusation, and I apologise. Haakon (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I will not change a word after this article is accepted. It is too stressful! Jmao1 (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WatchIndiaTV

Hello. I have removed your speedy tag from this article. The db-spam tag is for articles that are 100% promotional. That article had content that was not promotional and so the speedy tag did not apply. Instead, next time simply remove the promotional material and leave whatever is left. I found a really great essay that explains speedy tags really well and increased my undersanding of them, I'd recommend it to you too, it is WP:WIHSD. Thanks and happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. Haakon (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tk1985 and his band B57

Heja, Haakon. Just to let you know, I have eventually reported this guy and got him blocked for his copyright infringements. Thanks for the teamwork. De728631 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: The mary isamali foundation

Hello Haakon, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (The mary isamali foundation) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question because it made a credible claim of importance. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and after the nomination I was struck but a little doubt. I see that it was speedy deleted after all. Haakon (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Proxy Networks

Hello Haakon, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Proxy Networks - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Free per click

An article that you have been involved in editing, Free per click, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free per click. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ravensfire (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion declined: Proxy Networks

Hi Haakon (talk), thank you for your response to this article. I would like to inform you that this article is a list of all providers, and Proxy Networks is a provider of this kind of software. Also GedUK  has supported not to delete this article, and mentioned that the article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. If you have any suggestions or problems, I would be glad to hear them.--Mamalade515 (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You can't "decline" an AfD. I agree it should not be speedy deleted on A7 grounds, but it's now on AfD, which usually lasts a week. During this time, consensus is gathered from the community of editors, for or against deletion. You are welcome to state your opinion in this process; go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proxy Networks to do so. Haakon (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jaikoz

I've added references to Jaikoz to flesh out its notability, but perhaps they are insufficient. They may though warrant keeping the article for now that it might be improved, and indeed there was an editor doing exactly that before this nomination. If you have an opinion yea or nay, perhaps you will share it at the AfD discussion for Jaikoz. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

InDefero article issues

Hi Haakon I made some changes to the article InDefero. Please review it and remove the article issues. Thanks --torusJKL (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "no references" issue since there are now clearly references. I left the "notability" issue since I don't think the added sources constitute significant coverage. If somebody else disagrees with that, I won't put up a fight. Haakon (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Project Kaiser deletion

Dear Haakon,

well, at least progress is made :). Question - why our competitors ( Comparison of issue tracking systems ) like

• Codendi
• CodeBeamer_(software)
• Redmine

exist here ?

German.lutoff (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They exist because somebody wrote the articles and nobody have appeared to evaluate their notability yet. I nominated Codendi for deletion now. Redmine has already had an AfD and the result was keep. Haakon (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

List of web content management systems

Hi, you reverted a change I made to the "List of Web Content Management Systems" page, removing Percussion from the Java section (correctly stating that I had listed a company, not a product.) Would it be acceptable to relist the WCMS under the product name? I'd like to know how to correctly include it. Thanks! --CJO3000 (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As it is noted in a comment in the article source, "This is a list of NOTABLE CMSs, as judged by the existence of articles on Wikipedia." So without an article, the product should not be listed. In my opinion, I don't think the product passes the inclusion guidelines for Wikipedia due to lacking notability. Haakon (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of CBIR engines

Hi, you recently marked the article List_of_CBIR_Engines for speedy deletion. I was not able to determine which criterion of the non-directory policy that this article fails. I understand your dislike of external links in Wikipedia, but this article is very useful to computer vision researchers, and is similar to other useful lists of software/websites: (e.g. 1 2 3 4, etc).

I have also removed the speedy deletion because the article must first fail one of the following criteria. It seems your request should follow the normal deletion process. HappyFlappy (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not mark it for speedy deletion; i marked it for proposed deletion. I would agree that speedy deletion does not apply. Haakon (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the 7 day warning meant that it was a speedy deletion. Is there anything I can do to make the article acceptable to you? HappyFlappy (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You (or somebody) should list only those engines which are covered by their own Wikipedia entries, and use internal links instead of external. Since the prod was removed, it does no longer apply, but it could (and probably will, sooner or later) be nominated for deletion through the AfD process, and I've seen articles with similar problems be deleted before. I can see you have put a lot of work into the article, and it would be good to find a way to keep it if possible. Haakon (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Outing

Hi- on this AFD, I'd recommend being careful to respect WP:OUTING. I'd encourage you to redact part of the nomination to ensure you aren't crossing that line. Cheers, tedder (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done. I'm not sure exactly where the line between pointing out a critical conflict of interest and "outing" goes, but I'd rather not make a fuss. Haakon (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure where it is either, honestly, but anytime a connection is made from a wikipedian to the outside, it's near the line. The AFD is still solid without it. I'll usually write "possible COI" in a case like this. tedder (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WebFlicker CMS

Thank you for your talk. With this article I'm trying to give visitors of List of content management systems a chance to learn about other commercial system. I know that WebFlicker CMS is not an absolute unique system but it is comparable with other commercial software form PHP table like Jumper 2.0,Site Foundry, [[]] and BlueHighway. Could you please advice me what to change on my article so it will not brake wikipedia rules. --Weissh (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate that the product passes the general notability guideline. That means citing appropriate sources. Haakon (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@file hosting services article

Can you please explain why you considered my new entry on filesio as "Non-notable"? It's a service that is at least as powerful as all the other services in the list and there are a lot of people using it here in Germany (including myself). Furthermore, it's listed in the German wikipedia, too (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateiaustauschdienst) -- FrankBitzer (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If it were notable, it would have its own article on this Wikipedia. If you look at all the other entries in the list, they all have articles. This is the standard usually applied to the English Wikipedia; German Wikipedia may have other customs.

It also looks like you are the CEO of the company behind the service. You should not edit Wikipedia on topics pertaining to your company, see WP:COI. Haakon (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: List of mixed media artists

You're right: I didn't. I had just tried to revert to an earlier version: after saving, I saw the problem and tried to revert to your version, but you beat me to that, too! Cheers. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to step on each other's toes sometimes :-) Thanks for your work. Haakon (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And for your work. The user was blocked, by the way. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Anti-Spam Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense.--Hu12 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alertboot

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Alertboot, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Alertboot and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Codf1977 (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay downtime on 10th January 2010

Why did you delete that ? The message on the website was "something is broken, we are working on it ETA 1 AM GMT" but now that is gone as well. I see you are a big contributor to Wikipedia so you must know better, but wasn't that worthy of being there ? At this time there is no sources to cite but this can be checked immediately by trying to visit the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.39.243 (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NOTNEWS. Basically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site for originally researched news reporting. Haakon (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to delete EnterpriseWizard Inc

Please respond to my comments in response to your suggestion that this article be removed. For your convenience I attach a copy below:

Comments by Author: I would welcome any actionable suggestions for improving the article, but the above comments are simply not accurate. You say that you could only find a couple of press releases, but every paragraph in the article is backed by references and there are by articles (not press releases) in InfoWorld (eg http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/enterprisewizard-releases-customizable-crm-967, http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/saaswizard-offers-app-dev-saas-027) with independent comments from China Martens, an analyst from the 451 group and Steve Chipman, CEO of LexNet. There are also articles in Internet News (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3531_569691) and other publications.

The company is also covered by independent analyst firms. For example http://www.infotech.com/research/help-desk-vendor-landscape-outside-the-box-solutions. Info Tech highlights them as being one of the four Customer Support (Help Desk) vendors that address cross-enterprise needs, which places them in a fairly small group and I note that Kayako (one of the other four companies, covered in this category by InfoTech) is included in Wikipedia.

It is also not accurate to say that there are two references in Google News, there are over 80,000 other references to the company available in Google.

Incidentally, the world's third largest company (Chevron) runs their Sarbanes Oxley processes on EnterpriseWizard software (http://www.enterprisewizard.com/chevron-case-study.pdf) and they are critical to another dozen Fortune 100 companies that I am aware of. Should I have included this information in the article? I did not do so because it sounded like advertising and I wanted to keep any emotional content out of the article.

This company is far larger and more influential than dozens of companies, such as Fogbuz that have entries in Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia must adhere to a consistent set of criteria in deciding what companies merit inclusion.

I have made some edits to clarify these points, but do not want to introduce content into the article that will make it sound like an advertisement. Please let me know what I should do to improve this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicharHMorgan (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You seemed to take issue with the fact that it is known for Customer Support and Workflow. I believe the analyst coverage mentioned above on Help Desk (internal customer support) addresses the first point. The reason that the company is known for it's Workflow solutions is that it currently the only company that provides a graphical workflow editor that actually creates business processes, rather than just producing pictures of them (see http://www.enterprisewizard.com/flash/WorkflowDemo.html) for an example. I did not include this information in the article because it sounded like advertising, should I have included it?

Incidentally, I do not work for EnterpriseWizard but in my spare time, I do maintain a website, http://www.aidsstories.com that is funded by their CEO in an attempt to reduce the spread of AID's among intravenous drug users (I believe that he also provides some matching contributions for employees who contribute to Wikipedia).

Please would you clarify what you mean by "single-issue users?" Apart from holding down a career in Silicon Valley and maintaining the AID's Stories website, I work with several community groups and contribute in multiple ways to the online and in-person communities.RicharHMorgan (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)RicharHMorgan (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Every one of your Wikipedia edits relates to EnterpriseWizard, and that makes you single-issue. You have a conflict of interest and should not edit Wikipedia to subjects you are closely involved with. All that aside, the article needs to demonstrate that the subject fulfulls the general notability guideline -- please read that if you haven't. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

blogtronix

why did u tag for deletion? has undergone substantial revision. was around for 3 days without anybody saying anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimccargar (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't tag it, I just reinstated a tag that someone else added. You're not supposed to remove speedy tags from pages you created yourself. Haakon (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

o ok, i didn't know that. just seeing what would happen. why did you add conflict of interest tag? Elimccargar (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you appear to have a conflict of interest. Haakon (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding ActionScript code protection

16:47, 21 January 2010 Haakon (talk | contribs) (6,848 bytes) (→List of SWF ActionScript obfuscation software: We don't do lists of external links; see WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:EL)

But what about this article? I thought that this is not a violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_SWF_Editor The above article sits here pretty long time. External link in the question is "SWF Quicker: Shareware, Windows" Please assist.

I cleaned that up since it was also against guidelines. Haakon (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Have one more question. I am in the process of making "Comparison of SWF ActionScript protection software" article. This should not violate wiki`s rules. Right? Can few external links be posted there? SWF and code obfuscation is an interesting theme which may be very useful for readers...

P.S. Sorry for the mistakes I made. I am just a beginner. I do have read the article about external links and articles creation, but some things were not clear for me and that is why I made the mistakes.

Comparison articles are fine, but mostly they should just compare notable products, as in products which have Wikipedia articles. Also be careful to cite sources so that the article is not original research. Don't be too worried about making mistakes, since they can always be fixed later. Thanks for your contributions! Haakon (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The OWDE Acronym

With regards to Platformic, OWDE stands for Online Web Development Environment. It's a common term used by project managers and developers in numerous IT corporations in the UK. Sendalldavies (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Notable

How are you the authority to determine which software companies are "notable"? Bv012210 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Bv012210

I am not at all; the community of editors is. I tried to find signs of notability, but failed, and that is why I nominated the article for deletion so that a consensus can be established. Haakon (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Addion of a new Bug Tracker rejected

Hello, could you please give me a clue on how I can add an info on a bug-tracking system into the comparison table? I represent JetBrains, a known vendor of development tools, and I don't see any reasons why we could not add our product (which already has a meaningful user base) to the list. I would be grateful if you could explain me the reasons why you removed my recent addition about YouTrack here: Comparison of issue tracking systems? Thank you in advance. -- Ptibird (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The criterion for getting on the list is that the product has its own Wikipedia article. You will see this is true for every other entry. And then, the criterion for having its own Wikipedia articles is that the subject fulfills the general notability guideline. Please note that as a representative of the company you are strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia on matters regarding your company, as you have a conflict of interest. Haakon (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind explanation. As for adding an article on the product: if an article is really informative, and is not an advertisement, why would its author's origin matter? Moreover, when it's about software, its vendor would be the first who is able to update the article and present the most actual information to the audience, e.g. latest version number, new functionality, etc. So, I believe that as long as common sense is not broken, it should not be a problem for vendors to update pages with info on their products. No? Doesn' it sound reasonable? Thanks again for your time and opinion. -- Ptibird (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A conflict of interest is just that -- your interest is not necessarily the pursuit of an encyclopedia which attains the sum of human knowledge, but to spread awareness of your company. To quote WP:COI, "COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked." It would be a good idea to very clearly declare your conflict of interest on your user page. Haakon (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

search3

Haakon Thanks for your review of the Search3 page. I have added a significant number of reliable sources to the page since you last reviewed it, please let me know if this helps as it relates to that issue. Regarding the Source being myself as a co-founder i am not sure what to do here? I want to have this be as transparent and independent as possible, can you help edit it to make it better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdclayton (talk • contribs) 19:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

[1] is an interesting source (although it's you yourself who is interviewed there). The rest are not significant coverage (as required by WP:N). As for your conflict of interest, please read WP:COI for some advice. Note that this guideline strongly discourages you from writing about subjects you are strongly involved with. It would be helpful if you clearly declared your conflict of interest on your user page. All your Wikipedia activity relates to Search3, and this gives the impression that rather than helping write an encyclopedia, you just want to promote your company (see WP:SPA). Haakon (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ZUVVI edits

Many thanks for reviewing the ZUVVI page. I see you have asked if a system is under a BSD licence then where is the source. The provision of a BSD license in advance of release is a legal requirement for ensuring the intention is followed through. When putting a simple system or library out using an OS licence the issue is normally moot, but as we will need to support everyone from the moment of final release it is normal to inform the public of the licence without making the source available until that support is in place. (Repo, Sheriff-ed source control, feedback system etc.) You seem to believe you can only select an OSI ratified licence onnce the source is available - this is legally impossible. This would mean all system under development would need to make their source available from the very first line. Please review how BSD itself, CUPS, and other OS products were taken to release for examples. I hope that helps with your understanding of how Commercial Open Source is delivered. Aeomer (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You are splitting hairs. Your product is currently not available under a BSD license; it is misleading to announce that it is. Haakon (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the ZUVVI discussion page for an explanation of how to obtain the source code. I don't wish to get into a 'tit-for-tat' argument as I really want the page to be included following all the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines and I do want your feedback. Aeomer (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Umbraco and CMS articles

Please discuss with me your db-spam annotation of the Umbraco article and the selective deletion of noteworthy CMSs in the List of Content Management Systems article in their respective discussion pages. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no db-spam on it now, just a regular AfD. You are invited to give your comments there. Haakon (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I read your comment there, but could you go and have a second look at the ongoing discussion? Are you still convinced of the validity of your original remark? I do appreciate your effort to keep Wikipedia clean, but I think you were wrong about this one.

Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe three references from the same narrow-interest trade publication constitutes significant coverage. I'm following the discussion. Haakon (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Though I only registered a couple of years ago, I am not a new Wikipedia contributor. However, I had not engaged in a similar dispute in the past and was startled by what I thought was a discrepancy between a common-sense notion of notability and what you had in mind. You have been polite and fair and I had to assume that his views were supported by the Wikipedia guidelines. That would have created quite an unexpected conflict between common sense (which tells me that the #2 .NET CMS is noteworthy) and Wikipedia's definitions. I started the article guided by what I though was common sense and my belief that umbraco is the #2 .NET CMS, but you initial objections seemed to suggest that I could not use my common-sense definition of notability as a contributor to Wikipedia -- I had to turn to Wikipedia's own definition which could support your objections. However, reading the notability guidelines, all I could extract was a list sufficient, not necessary, conditions for notability. "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." I can see why anyone familiar with some of the more common ways of establishing noteworthiness in Wikipedia would be skeptical about this article's noteworthiness. But at the end of the day, Wikipedia's notion of notability does not go against common sense and is not as narrow as I was initially lead to believe. There is "verifiable objective evidence" to support that umbraco is one of the top 3 most noteworthy .NET CMSs. It may not be what we are used to, but it is evidence I would not hesitate to reference in a scientific journal article, a conference paper, or for that matter a Wikipedia entry. I would have more doubts about some existing Wikipedia articles, but that's a seperate issue. I still think this article should stay and that both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines do not go against what I believe to be common sense.

Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk)

I'm unclear how issues such as software features and license agreements can be addressed without self-published sources. Joomla, Dot Net Nuke and Drupal all use the same sort of citations in their pages? --Mardenpb1 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding self-published sources, I have written a bit in the article's discussion page; in a nutshell, a license agreement is a primary source and as such can be referenced in Wikipedia, so long as the relevant statement about it can be verified without specialist knowledge. However, not all self-published references have been removed yet. Miltiadis Kokkonidis (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

BugUp Tracker page marked to be deleted

Hi Haakon. I can understand why you must think BugUp Tracker is not notable, but since this is my first article regarding bug-tracking shareware/freeware software, that produce great results (from my own experience as a QA manager), i would like you to reconsider your nomination to delete my contribution. I have worked with numerous bug-tracking software systems and would like to contribute from my experience to start up companies (such as was my own company), and assist them to locate the best products to support their work. if you have doubts regarding the notability of the product, please review the latest page they added (http://www.informup.com/startupfree.aspx) which is testament to their success with start-ups. since this is my first page in a series of articles that are meant to benefit others, I'd appreciate your support. Let me know which evidence (if added) would convince you, or other Wikipedia editors, to show their support as well. thanks Benblum1 (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Benblum1 (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CGram Software page marked to be deleted

Hi Haakon. When you flagged this page which I created you sent me the very nice welcome to Wikipedia message and also said that I was welcome to participate in the discussion. Why is it then that when I do make a comment you immediately mark it "Here come the SPA's"? This is not helpful to a new Wikipedian and does not encourage participation. - OK I acknowledge I've not edited much else but I can't change that while this discussion is going on. I do have other projects in mind but I doubt I will bother with them now.Vrenator (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse my off-hand edit summary; I got a little frustrated when I found two seemingly single-purpose users having commented. You, and any other Wikipedia editor, are of course welcome in the discussion. Haakon (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

COI - RMTrack article

Yes, I am a manger at RMTrack - who else is likely to write an article about RMTrack? I guarantee that most articles referring to a small corporations are created by someone working for that corporation. The only reason that you know that, is because I was silly enough to use an actual name when I created my account and you have used that information to Google/LinedIn me.

This is my first foray into wikipedia - so far I am finding this a difficult experience.

I will create a new account and use that for all future posts to wikipedia.

I do not see however, that anything on the page exhibits any COI - is all factual. Martinshowell (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

netDNA

hi haakon can you re-check the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetDNA page. I edited and corrected the article. There are no advertisement anymore. thanks.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Direnk (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but there are still many sentences that do not conform to WP:NPOV. The bigger issue, however, is that of notability; references need to be cited. Haakon (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

page updated again, but this time I didn't do anything?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Direnk (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. I fixed the advertisement issue. Haakon (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why?

You didn't like my edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.231.20 (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Where can I write satire on Wikipedia?

I want to write satire on Wikipedia. Where is the section? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.231.20 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts to be a serious, quality encyclopedia, so it is not the place to write satire. You should look at contributing to Uncyclopedia instead, for example. Haakon (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is awesome and really funny! Thanks man!

Signed: Madonnafan

Hello Haakon, How to get Flash sites parsed properly

I've read over your talks page and you seem really cool and interesting. I've been contributing to WikiPedia for many years also, and I belive that like you, this is a wonderful resource that should be kept clear of BS and commercial interests. WE seem to go back and forth a bit changing a file on Sitemaps. The example I posted is one where I know I have the rights to use the content and to disclose the code for the site map as it is our site. It is a small site, so the XML sitemap is very short, and can be shown unabridged. It is a site map in XML that defines a unique type of site _ Html/CSS with a Flash navigation bar - this is typically best serverd by an XML sitemap, as without it, the pages are not found and understood as being linked as part of one site. Most importantly, the site is not commercial. There is nothing for sale, and I don't beleive we gain anything with this link - in fact many web developers who would be our compeditors probably visit the site.

It means a lot to me to have a complete and detailed description of sn XML sitemap that I have had a hand in authoring. I'm proud of how cleanly this was executed. I hope you can let it stand. Mostly, I hope this is a valuable resource to students and fellow developers, as we struggled for years to get Flash sites parsed properly. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by DShantz (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I think it could come close to original research, but I'll let others decide. However, I don't think it is productive to link to your company's site, so I removed references to it. Haakon (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No not original Research at all. Common use, but specialized knowledge that is what people come to an Encyclopedic resource to find. Haakton, we do marketing - but this is not marketing promotion - what is so wrong with havingthe site demonstrate what the site navigation looks like and how it works - it adds practical lknowledge and demosntrates the knowledge in a practical sense. It is very much an encyclopedic reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DShantz (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest and should not add such links to your own company. It is not a reference, just a link to your company's web site. If someone unconnected to your company disagrees with me, they can reinstate the links. Haakon (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I give up - you can't see the benign slight advantage is outweighed by the addition of depth in understanding of the subject by having an example. (it hurts no one but helps all) Its not so much a conflict of interest - its as if we were uploading an image which we have the rights to, to illustrate this fairly complex subject by way of example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DShantz (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely see your point, and I thank you for bringing it up with me in the first place. There is no need to give up; things are decided by consensus, and not by one person such as myself. So I think it is more appropriately debated on Talk:Site map where more people can chime in. I have started the discussion there; please add anything there if you want to. Haakon (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

External links are often appropriate

Haakon, Wiki does not always have the answer and it is necessary to link to an external site. For instance, when a user looks up "Amortization Calculator", often that is what they are looking for - a calculator. Although the formulas that users place on the page are often great for advanced mathmaticians, they rarely answer the basic question of a user on what their loan is going to look like in 10 years. In these cases, it is necessary to link to third party tools that are free and do not try to solicit advertisement. Rjacoby (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Rjacoby

The guidelines are quite clear. Even if you were right, which specific link should we put in? Everybody wants their own link, including yourself. Therefore, one link that one editor deems essential quickly explodes into a huge linkfarm and a spammer's delight. In this case, DMOZ has a whole category full of amortization calculators, so it is common practice to link there instead. Haakon (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Projectricity product addition to bug tracking comparison page

I see you reverted the addition to the bug tracking tool comparison page. Not sure why - can you help me understand what is needed to add those entries? Same format as other entries was followed. Also need help on how to add a page about the company as has been done for all the other tool providers. Refer to Comparison of issue tracking systems Many thanks. {{helpme}} --Mmalenke (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you're requesting help from a single user then there's no need to use the helpme tag (which should go on your own talk page anyhow). Regards,  fetchcomms☛ 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It was reverted because it was about a product without a Wikipedia article of its own. This is a prerequisite for listing, to ensure only notable products are listed. Haakon (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I had actually created a page about the company but it got removed, even though I created it just like other company pages. How did the other company pages get created that are listed on the Comparison of issue tracking systems page that describe the company and list the products they offer? I see they have external links to their home pages and even product information. I would like to follow the Wikipedia guidelines of course, but want to add to the bug tracking comparison repository. Thanks again. --Mmalenke (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The page got deleted because there was no indication of the product's notability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not simply a repository of information, so there is the notability requirement. Notability has to be demonstrated by citing sources showing significant coverage in reliable, third-party publications.

You seem to be closely related to the company behind the product, and as such, you have a conflict of interest and are strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia on subjects pertaining to this company or its products. Haakon (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hiccup

Thanks for catching that non-sourced "heart attack" claim on the Hiccup page. Just for completeness, I posted a polite warning template to User:Tannim101's talk page. (Not that it'll make much of a difference; he/she is amassing quite a collection of notices.)

Wow, BTW, you're doing a helluva job cleaning up garbage! Congratulations--keep it up! UncleBubba (Talk) 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerto (Software) Wikipedia

It is notable because there are very few Critical Chain softwares in existence. The Concerto (Software) page is useful and must not be deleted. It is very helpful for companies that are trying to find Critical Chain softwares and come across the Wikipedia link.

Hope you will withdraw your request so that it does not get deleted. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.208.110 (talk • contribs)

You should argue your points on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerto (software). It's more helpful if you can point to instances of significant third-party coverage in reliable sources, which is what the requirement for inclusion is. Haakon (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR for TPB

The Pirate Bay has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Pcap ping 23:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Serena Software

I came across the deletion of the Serena Software article when you removed the link to the article from Silver Lake Partners. I am not sure what the content of the article was when it was deleted - but the company is notable (it was acquired in a $1.2 billion buyout). I would be willing to try to create a WP:NPOV start level article. Before I did that I wanted to see what your objections might be. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was decided by consensus to delete it for lack of notability. If you can find sources that demonstrate notability as in WP:GNG and WP:CORP, I suppose you request a deletion review to have the article undeleted, and then fix the POV issues and add the necessary sources. Haakon (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

if I have to go to deletion review, I would like your support. I saw a cached version of the article so I understand where you are coming from but I don't think you guys looked too hard at what was out there. First of all the company was public from 1999 until Silver Lake bought it for $1.2 billion in 2005 (SEC website) so it is hard to say this is some small insignificant company. Just a quick glance of the New York Times has a whole bunch of items: NYT, NYT, NYT. Other articles: USA Today, Marketwatch,Red Herring, Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal , Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal , San Francisco Business Times, San Francisco Business Times, Business Week, Industry Publication, Industry Publication And I spent about 5 min looking.

On a cursory look, it seems like most of the sources you mention are either routine announcements, incidental mentions, or blog posts, none of which are usually counted as significant or reliable coverage. However, I think in sum you bring something extra to the table that you unfortunately were too late for AfD with, so I think there might be grounds for a deletion review here. I don't have the capacity to help you out with it, or to endorse an undeletion, but if you want to pursue a deletion review, I will say that it seems reasonable. Haakon (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems reasonable |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

external link deleted

a link that I placed for the full list of online casinos is not considered spam (according to the definition of spam in Wikipedia). The page includes a list of online casinos sorted alphabetically and no advertisement, the list in dmoz is not updated with all the casinos and the list that I'm working on is adding value in a relevant location in the page.

Unfortunately, these situations always lead to a creeping amount of links, since everybody wants their own link included and no link is better than the other. The best thing to do is to link to a certified neutral third party such as DMOZ, and instead work on updating that. Haakon (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)