This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
I removed the COI template from atop the article, because the user who added the template (diff) had already removed content from the article (diff, diff) posted by AliciaE (diff). The article is neutral in tone at this time and does not require cleanup. Please see Template:COI § When to use for more information, such as "...this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors." North America1000 18:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that same section supports my own actions: "Use this tag to alert readers that the article may be biased by a conflict of interest, and to request help with an article that is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or by a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., public relations employees). Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement", "Do not use this tag if you can quickly solve the problem, e.g., by removing peacocking and puffery or by reverting the blanking of well-sourced criticism" therefore restoring only makes it clear the article is promotional. Restoring what is clearly information by a company employee violates our Terms of Use. See Our Terms of Use, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation"; allowing an employee keep and evade our Terms of Use is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The employee's own summary stated they were here to enhance the article yet continued to violate our Terms of Use. Shaming has nothing to do here if they knowingly violated our Terms of Use, asking for disclosure. SwisterTwistertalk 18:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The content in question was already removed. The article is entirely neutral in tone at this time, and is not promotional. Maintenance templates are not meant to be on articles forever. North America1000 18:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That actually contradicts what WP:COI says which is: "Maintenance templates are there until the concerns are addressed" and that's not the case here. History shows no attempts at supposed removal after my own. See COI edits which are still in the article here. SwisterTwistertalk 18:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the coi problem has been addressed. The promotionalism problem has not, and I added the appropriate template. I did remove some of the worst of it, include such PR-talk reasons for founding a company as "attempting to sell a new technology that he had developed" -- which is not exactl ydistinctive or of any encyclopedic interest. Since the firm is notable, there might be something to be said for deleting the entire article and rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
