User talk:Shaw76

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Landing page, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --CliffC (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

---

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Landing page optimization. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --CliffC (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

---

You should review the material at the links cited above before you continue. Persistent spammers may have their site blacklisted. --CliffC (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Shaw, I was wondering if you could tell me why you reverted my edits to the Pervasive software article, it's convention to provide a reason in the edit summery when you do that. For now I've reinstated my changes, if you still want them removed, please give a reason and we can talk about it. I've also noted that most of your edits seem to be on the Pervasive Software article, it's products and it's competitors - If you are a current or ex-employee of Pervasive, or have any other strong connection to them it's likely you have an conflict of interest and it would be a good idea for you to check the COI editing guidelines because editing while in a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged and may be counterproductive because it tends to draw greatly increased scrutiny. TurningWork (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Begin copied section

I've tagged this article as spam for blatent advertising, although it probably also qualifies under A7, no evidence of notability. Also has substantial COI edits from Paigerob who probably works for Pervasive, and 64.132.13.2 who quite definitely does ( check his reverse dns lookup... ) TurningWork (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Paigerob does not work for Pervasive and I am the only one authorized in our organization to edit our wiki pages. 64.132.13.2 is from our organization but not authorized to make changes (we sent out an email reminding our employees not to edit wiki pages). We do not treat this page as an advertisement but rather information about our software for those doing research about our product. This is not a COI edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaw76 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Paigerob has stated that he used to be an employee of Pervasive ( see here ) so he does have a conflict of interest, and if you are offically authorized to edit wiki by Pervasive then BY DEFINITION you have a conflict of interest and should check the COI editing guidelines TurningWork (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

She worked for DataJunction which was purchased by Pervasive. Once purchased she was let go. The history of the company and its purchases are one of the items you removed. (Shaw76 (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Well, she still says she did a lot of work on the product which means that she'll permenantly have a conflict of interest in editing the article on it. Oh, by the way, might be worth reading this section on the posting of personal information about other editors. I don't think we've crossed the line in the discussion above because there's nothing actually identifying the person concerned, but we're getting pretty close so let's be careful.

If you wanted to write something on the history of the company for inclusion in the Pervasive Software page then I can't see any harm in that so long as it can be written using external sources so as to comply with the rules on verifiability. The guidelines for doing that while a known conflict of interest exists would be:-

• For you to put a notice on your User page openly declaring your involvement with Pervasive and that you're writing on thier behalf, there's an example of the sort of thing you might say here. While clearly stating a COI like this on your user page may draw some increased scrutiny to your work, being direct and open about it will win you some goodwill and make it more likely that other eidtors will give you and your work the benifit of the doubt so long as the edits arn't blatently self-serving.
• Write a brief history of the company, it's mergers and perchases ( I'd guess 1 paragraph, 2 at the most would be right ) being very carefull to obey the rules on verifiability and on reliable sources. Since this would be directly about the company then the company's website could be used as a source, but independant reports would be strongly prefered. The upload it to the Pervasive Software talk page, NOT to the main article, and again let people know that you're working for pervasive and trying to be helpful. Be careful when writing it to stick to just the plain fact, no comments on how a merger/perchase was good/bad cheap/expensive etc.
• I'm currently watching the pervasive software page, so I'll likely notice quite quickly and it if seems reasonable then I'll move it to the main article. If you prefer to have someone else who's got no involvment in this review it and decide if it should be used then put {{Request edit}} below your proposed addition and that will draw the attention of some other editor to review it.

TurningWork (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

We can hardly control former employees however we do ask them not to edit wiki pages. I am beginning to wonder if you have a COI as you seem to have singled out Pervasive while ignoring not only many other software products but also our competitors (Here and Here). Just pointing out that for someone who seems to be so concerned with quality you do not distribute this attention evenly nor do spell very well(benifit, arn't, blatently, independant, perchases twice, etc). What is your true objective?

"no evidence of notability" - Have you done any research on Pervasive Software or our products? "on your User page openly declaring your involvement with Pervasive and that you're writing on thier behalf, there's an example of the sort of thing you might say here." - I OPENLY declare that I am a Pervasive employee and the first thing I did as a Pervasive employee was remove blatant advertisements from wikipedia pages and had a "no wiki edit policy instituted at Pervasive. Both 'their' and 'research' are misspelled (concentrate more on quality and less on rules my friend, ie personal info reference). I could go on but its the end of my day.

Point being all is this guy is a troll. View the history page, a third party declined his request for rapid deletion because its not blatant advertising. He is obviously either employed by a competitor or just really bored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaw76 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

End copied section

Throughout this discussion I have been trying to both improve the articles about Pervasive and it's products ( improve doesn't automatically mean expand ) and to help you make constructive contributions to wikipedia despite the conflict of interest. I am aware that I am frequently somewhat forthright in my views and put them across quite strongly, if that has caused offense then I apologize, it was not my intent to insult anyone and I am not stating or implying that you have done anything wrong.

I was not asking or expecting you to do anything about Paigerob's contributions, I was only pointing out that by her own statement she clearly does have a conflict of interest, which is why the article merited the {{coi}} warning tag. I do not have a conflict of interest, I do not work in the data processing, I never have, nor does anyone I know. I have no connection whatsoever ( that I know of ) to Pervasive, your competitors, or anyone/anything else even remotely connected to the field, I work as an Electrical Engineer.

The reason that I have been editing article connected to Pervasive and not your competitors is simply that I came across Pervasive's article when randomly browsing through Wikipedia, if you check my contributions you'll see I edit an extremely diverse group of articles based on what I come across while clicking Special:Random. When I first encountered the Pervasive Software article it read more like advertising copy[1] than an encyclopedia entry, so I looked into it, and noticed the (at that time only suspected) COI editing by Paigerob, 64.132.13.2, Ckauffman pvsw and Mclellancreative. Their edit histories led me to the rest of the articles on pervasive products and convinced me that they did have conflicts on interest (that's the danger of COI edits, when spotted they draw scrutiny to everything connected to that editor).

Wikipedia has 16,534,847 articles, and probably hundreds or thousands just on data integration software so no-one can possibly distribute their attention evenly, I am concerning myself with these specific articles because they are the ones I came across that appeared to have problems, doubtless other editors will examine and correct your competitors articles if they show the same issues. The reason my spelling is poor is that I have very mild Dyslexia which makes reliable and accurate spelling difficult for me, for that I apologize, if you have the time and are willing, I'd be gratful for any help you can give in correcting my spelling. Good spelling though, is not one of the core principles of wikipedia, verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view and avoiding conflicts of interest are. My "true objective" is to produce a reliable and credible encyclopedia and I am concerned about these articles because advertising speak and even the appearance of a conflict of interest (whether or not there actually is a substantive conflict over specific edits) harms the credibility of wikipedia, and I can only ask you to assume good faith.

I have indeed researched your company and it's products, or at least I've tried to, I've had considerable difficulty in locating credible and independent sources. So far most of the sources I have found have either been tied to Pervasive (directly or indirectly) or read like press releases and are therefor unsuitable for establishing notability. This is one of the things you could help with in order to improve the articles about your company and it's products, since you're likely to be better able to locate reliable independent sources because of your involvement with the industry. If you are able to locate some and put them on the talk pages of the relevant articles, we can use them to support and improve the articles. This is urgently needed because the rejection of my speedy delete request does not mean that the article is OK, only that it doesn't strictly meet the criteria for immediate deletion without debate. "Not blatant advertising" is not the same thing as "not advertising", the proposed deletion and fully debated deletion processes are still available and may be used either by me or other editors if no reliable third-party sources can be located to support these articles.

I'd like to thank you for implementing a no-wiki-editing policy at pervasive, by providing a single point of contact it greatly simplifies things, of course pervasive employees are welcome to edit any wiki articles where they don't have a conflict of interest. I would however point out that your first actions on joining wikipedia were not to "remove blatant advertisements from wikipedia pages", your edit history shows your first actions [2] [3] [4] were to introduce 3 spamlinks which were immediatly reverted [5], your first actions clearly linked to Pervasive [6] was the addition of a link to Pervasive software. As for whether I'm a troll or not, trolls by definition are seeking maximum attention, usually by making deliberately controversial edits in as public a place as possible, whereas we are talking on the talk pages set aside for such discussions and trying to reach a consensus on how to proceed. As regards "very bored" you don't know me well enough to comment on my interest levels :-)

In closing I would like to once again apologize for any insult inadvertently caused, and stress the wikipedia policy on assuming good faith I remain more than happy to work with you on improving the articles on pervasive and it's products where that's possible. I will understand if you wish to collaborate with other editors instead, and the judicious use of the {{request edit}} tag on article talk pages will help you to find someone willing. TurningWork (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

New Comment

This is probably none of my business but this little "discussion" has cause quiet an uproar. I am going to have to agree that your level of continuous editing is enormous. It seems to be more of a soap box for you to stand on and yell at everyone that they are not doing something right. I have been watching this discussion and several others and I think that you need to find another article to edit. While you were trying to be nice you have managed to offend some people. CIO is a term you are throwing around like armor to protect what you are doing. When it comes to looking for information on companies and looking for independent sources, why don't you try Gartner, which reports on software companies like Pervasive and IBM. In this tech world almost everything is tied to many different sources and it is impossible to find anyone who isn't a little bias in what they think and what they know. Anyway sorry to put a downer(is not really a word but I'm making it one) on you, hope that you decide to find something else to do cause for obvious reasons as stated I think that you have offended this person, besides everyone makes mistakes when they first use wikipedia or anything for that matter Char808 (talk)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pervasive Data Integrator. 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/Pervasive Data Integrator. 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) 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply