Talk:Lessac Technologies

Rework

Removed "advert" boxes, etc, after substantial rework to make text less promotional-sounding. 98.229.134.2 (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

This article was created by being submitted to Articles for Creation. The person who wrote the article is a Wikipedia newbie. She is also the wife of a LTI employee. She voluntarily disclosed this fact to the AfC editors. She worked with AfC people to get the article in shape for creation. The article was created by an AfC editor.

Then, tags were added to the article, saying that it was self-promotional, an "advert", and requires cleanup. I am a consultant for the company. What did we do wrong? The person who submitted the article was trying to be helpful, but it was not done with any involvement on the part of the company. We don't want the article on Wikipedia at all, if it has all sorts of tags on it, because it makes us look like we are bragging and spamming Wikipedia. That isn't us, and that is not what we are trying to do. So I am working to make the article unobjectionable as regards Wikipedia policy, as well as a bit more succinct. Failing that, we would prefer the article be removed than it sit here slimed with a lot of tags. Anyway, I am removing the COI tag because we have disclosed our connection to LTI, would like Wikipedia to assume our good faith, and indeed are trying in good faith to comply with Wikipedia policies. It would be fine with us if other editors "cleaned up" the article and removed the alleged objectionable "peacock" aspects. It would also be fine with us if the article were removed. But so far the only interest of editors other than those with a theoretical COI seems to be in tagging the article rather than improving it. Corretore (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

Removed cleanup tag. I have asked the editor who put this tag on the article to explain on the Talk page what needs to be cleaned up. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup states: "Avoid tagging articles if you can easily fix the problem. The goal is an improved article not a tagged article." The policy also states that if the problem is not obvious add a reason or via the talk page. The reason for the cleanup is supposedly that it is like an advert, but that is already covered by the other tags. None of this has been done. Corretore (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Peacock Tag

Please point specifically to the sentences which are "peacocky", or better yet reword them. If this is not done, I will be removing the peacock tag also. Corretore (talk)

I made some edits that I think address the peacock tag and pinged the editor who originally posted the tag to ask if he feels his concerns have been addressed. Just sit tight. If you wish to delete the article, you can nominate it for deletion and your request would be considered through a community process. As a matter of policy, article tags require consensus to remove. You will need to wait until we hear back from the editor that posted them. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What does "consensus" mean? Corretore (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It means all the editors that have an interest in a particular article agree. In this particular case, myself and the editor that posted the tags would be adequate. However, if the editor that posted the flags doesn't respond in a few weeks, please feel free to ping me and I will take the flags down. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what WP:TAGGING says about removing tags: "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." This describes the current situation. The essay states further that the practice of placing tags on pages without an explanation on the Talk page may be disruptive. The essay goes on to say (apparently with approval) that this type of tagging is derided as "drive-by-tagging". We do not have to wait "weeks" for the editor to get around to explaining why the tag is there. It was his responsibility to give us that information when he placed the tag. Accordingly, I am removing the tag. If you or the editor who originally posted the tags would care to explain how the article is supposed to be improved, then let us know on this Talk page, and re-tag the article if you must. Better yet, improve the article. It is only a few paragraphs long now; it shouldn't take very long to remove the alleged "peacocking". Corretore (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

notability and promotionalism

I have added a tag for what I consider dubious notability and also for promotionalism. I see no evidence that the company, as distinct from the technique, is important. I note their only active website appears to be that for the sale of their books, and provides no specific information about the firm itself. And as for the other tags, I agree with their placement. the COI is obvious, and that it has gone through AFC does not eliminate it. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts: (1) I'm intrigued by the notation that there needs to be information about the firm itself, distinct from the technique. Info on the firm was included in the original version but eliminated; perhaps it needs to be reinstated, possibly with an edit for words/phrases deemed to be promotional. For example: Lessac Technologies, Inc. (LTI) is a domestic (U.S.A.) firm incorporated in Delaware November 8, 2001. LTI has exclusive rights in perpetuity to [1]’s copyrighted works for electronic applications in speech synthesis and speech recognition. The firm currently (May 2012) has seven patents granted and three more patents pending for (a) its automated methods of converting digital text into human-sounding speech and (b) more accurately recognizing human speech and outputting the text representing the words and phrases of said speech, along with recognizing the speaker’s emotional state. The firm’s business model is one of licensing the right(s) to use its technology in various situations and settings.

(2) Would it be helpful to include references to the patents specifically (by number, etc., with summary of each)? I'm able to add that if so. Yoursinbooks (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yoursinbooks! I worked in your edits. If you wanted to add in citations for the patents, that would be great. DGG, if you can clarify where the advert/peacock/COI issues are, I can chip in to fix it. I didn't actually feel there were any, but was merely waiting for Scopecreep's feedback, since he originally placed the tags. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've added a citation for the seven patents granted.Yoursinbooks (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and took off the tags out of consideration of the subject, pending any feedback on how it may be improved, but please revert if you feel otherwise and lets discuss. Thanks for chipping in. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)