User talk:Slowestonian

When in doubt, leave no stone unturned.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Slowestonian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! --Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Iryna Harpy may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments added are just that, comments on the content offered. I was quite amused by several statements made on your page and supplied a message, nothing more. As an editor here, I sincerely hope you take such things in stride. No offense intended. --Slowestonian (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly referred to as WP:BOLLOCKS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the rationale behind the Harpy moniker. Consider myself warned. Have a relaxing life.--Slowestonian (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that all of your contribution so far, in the thee days you were active, consists in introduction of original research to BizEquity and Sageworks, as well as in vandalising of a user page of Iryna Harpy and posting trash at her talk page. I am not 100% whose sock you are (though I have some ideas), but if you continue like this, I am just going to block you for disruptive editing. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the editing is disruptive? I believe the issue with Harpy has been amicably resolved, why are you getting involved in this?--Slowestonian (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I could use assistance with the Sageworks article. An editor has reverted my contribution despite the fact that the material is supported by the referenced Privacy Policy posted by Sageworks on their website. It appears that someone is attempting to hide this information from the Wikipedia readers. How do we handle this?--Slowestonian (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the article is a good starting point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I look up Wikipedia policy on editing wars, neutral POV, etc? It seems the editor may be affiliated with the company. Is there a conflict of interest issue potentially?--Slowestonian (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a welcome template, you can follow the links from there. Specifically, for conflict of interest it should be WP:COI.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you owe me an explanation for why you have reverted my edits on the Bizequity page. Reviewing your background, I do not think you have the business appraisal background. First, abrupt intrusion upon an admittedly less than serious interaction with another editor (fixed between us), insulting insinuation of a sock (not appreciated), and now this unexplained revert. What is the basis for your actions?--Slowestonian (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not owe you anything. Please read policies first and only then start editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the policies and do not see any justification for your reverts. What is the basis for your edits on BizEquity page? Also, why did you remove my requests for clarification from your talk page? --Slowestonian (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because messages at talk pages should be added at the bottom, not at the top.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. Why did you revert my BizEquity edits?--Slowestonian (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain this reversion to you, although Ymblanter explained it in his edit summary as "rm original research" (meaning: removed as original research). Further to that, it contravenes WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED specifically, but please familiarise with WP:WORDS in general. This is why you've been asked to read the policy and behavioural links posted at the top of your talk page. There actually is quite a steep learning curve ahead and you'll pick up more on why these Wikipedianisms aren't simply jargon as you gain experience. Starting with the fundamentals is important. In fact, I usually advise new users to start by cleaning up articles in areas that don't actually interest them simply because there is no POV/emotional investment in the content. As boring as it may sound, you'd be surprised how a subject of peripheral interest becomes genuinely interesting. Jumping in at the deep end can end up off-putting when you find yourself being reverted for policies and guidelines you didn't expect to encounter. No matter how intelligent and well-versed you are in any particular area, it isn't as simple as it appears. Here endeth the lesson (for now). Happy editing, but please don't take reversions and deletion of your content personally. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The whole BizEquity article is shameless self-promotion by a non-notable company. Misleading statements made about fantastic volume of work without any proof. Why is it allowed to exist?--Slowestonian (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there is a Wikipedia policy against misleading self-promotion by obscure companies. Is it WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion? I would appreciate help invoking this policy to have the BizEquity article deleted from Wikipedia.--Slowestonian (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having read the article, I'm in agreement with you as to its not meeting even the basics of WP:GNG, so have submitted it to WP:AFD. Nevertheless, I'm seriously unimpressed with how you have approached this matter by violating basic Wikipedia principles in order to get attention (which could be construed as being WP:FORUMSHOPPING) and personal attacks on Ymblanter.

If you have started an account for WP:COI reasons, please state this now: i.e., you work for a rival company; bear a grudge against this company for personal reasons; are related to or are advocating of behalf of someone; are being paid to edit by an interest group; etc. COI editors are certainly allowed to contribute to Wikipedia so long as they state their COI from the outset and don't contribute in any areas where their interests may compromise their neutrality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start the account for WP:COI reasons. On occasion I look up info on Wikipedia and felt I could contribute in my expertise areas. I ran across companies here making outrageous claims and attempting to promote themselves.

Regardless of my comments, the cat's out of the bag - why do such promotions exist here? How would you act if someone else brought it to your attention?--71.39.6.142 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, thank you for taking the time to point out the complexity of editing. My apologies for the ill-conceived comments left earlier on your talk page.--Slowestonian (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the cat's not out of the bag. Other editors and admin will also have opinions as to whether BizEquity meets WP:GNG. If you look at the nomination, checking through the sources yields some results which could also be understood as meeting notability requirements. Unfortunately, there are a couple of books critiquing them which aren't available unless the editor has access to JSTOR (which I don't) or buys the publications themselves. Wikipedia is "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit": both a positive and a negative. There aren't enough regular editors to go around, and various patrolling projects aren't necessarily going to stumble on the article. We're reliant on the anyone's, like you or I, to find and report any potentially promotional content and WP:COATRACK articles. People can easily bypass the review process by simply creating an article. It's obvious that the BizEquity article was never submitted for review as it was not created in a draft space, nor has there been an official corresponding Wikipedia talk page created for it.

At the end of the day, there is a learning curve you need to go through in order to understand the processes and policies that apply in order to report articles and just edit here in general. There's no quick way around it other than reading the policies and guidelines, then rolling up your sleeves and doing some work. If you make a complete dolt of yourself while you're still a newbie, you'll be in good company... and others (like Ymblanter and myself) will allow you some elbow room in the hopes that you'll learn. All you really need is motivation and an ability to be humble (even if you think you're right). Be prepared to be insulted, abused and to WP:FACEPALM yourself, and to be trout-slapped. Honestly, if your ego is fragile you won't last, but it's a great place to gain a sense of perspective as to why you're not particularly any more special than anyone else. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Harpy, you are a marvel. I underestimated you.--Slowestonian (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the vote of confidence. I prefer to not overestimate myself.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about Sageworks article[edit]

Hi, there's some active editing and discussion going on about the Sageworks article at Talk:Sageworks, and you're invited to participate. Some editors commenting in the recent AFD have already been invited by another editor, and i am just making a point to contact the others, including you, to avoid any appearance of selectivity.

That's what i'm posting on other user Talk pages, everyone who participated in the AFD. Also, could you please make a statement whether or not you have any associations to disclose, at the Talk page section about that? --do ncr am 23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]