Talk:Mikogo

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

New article

I wrote the article about Mikogo because it's software that is a personal favourite and I wanted to get involved with Wikipedia, so I thought I'd share Mikogo. I see that it has been tagged for speedy deletion due to it not being encyclopedic enough. But I added all citations where I got the info. And these citations were not all from Mikogo, but rather I got them from online media publications, such as Macworld. I also read that the article as criticized for promoting a company. I did not focus on the company in the article, but instead the Mikogo software. Also, i know that there are many companies on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is what I personally use to read and learn about products and companies for their history etc, so I thought it's ok to write about products on Wikipedia.

Can you please advise me on specific changes that need to be made to my article and I will do my best to follow your instructions and guidelines?

Thanks.

C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clint ml (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did a good job; I'm glad Nihiltres undeleted it. — Athaenara ✉ 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Athaenara. I'm going to try and place a little more info about Mikogo on the article to minimize promotion. Perhaps you have some tips for me or would be willing to assist - would be cool if you could.

Thanks C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clint ml (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a discussion of its security strengths and weaknesses, so far as they are known.

Harry.Erwin (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the writer likes the product that is the subject of the article, but as an encyclopedic article those last two parts of the article seem almost like a product ad... or is it just me??? 166.250.1.107 (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just you... those last two sections, "What happens after the trial period" and "Do I need a Pro Version license" read EXACTLY like product advertising... like language straight from a product's web site.

And I cannot believe that anyone around here is teetering on the edge about any of this. Written exactly as it is, this article did, indeed, need to be deleted... or, at the very least, have a big Wikipedia-standard notice put at its very top warning that it reads more promotionally than encyclopedically, and that it needs to be fixed or it will be removed.

The author playing dumb and acting like he doesn't know what is the problem, and only correcting that on which someone thinks to call him, is the kind of disingenuous stuff that marketers do around here, and there needs to be a harsh consequence for it. The author writes, here, about "minimizing promotion." Are you kidding me? Minimizing? NO promotion, whatsoever, belongs here. None! Mere minimization isn't even close to good enough. Why are we even having this conversation?

Instruction on how to write a proper Wikipedia article is clearly offered right in the new user's own area, and can't be missed when s/he first signs-up. There is, additionally, all manner of other helpful information, examples, etc.

Instead of asking people what needs to be fixed, the author of this Wikipedia article (which is not "his," incidentally... he referred to it as "my article," and that misguided attitude may well be at least part of the problem, here) needs to bother to take the time to actually READ the instructions and standards here, and then make sure his article complies. Simple as that. No other discussion needed.

Until it does comply, then, seriously, this article -- or, at the very least, its last two sections -- needs to be removed. And shame on anyone here for pressuring, to restore it, the person who clearly rightly removed the article in the first place... at least until after it had been fixed. If it was restored so it could be fixed (which, if so, probably should have been temporarily placed into the author's sandbox until it's finally ready), then, fine, to the author: READ THE INSTRUCTIONS AROUND HERE REGARDING WHAT MAKES A GOOD WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, AND THEN FIX THIS ARTICLE PURSUANT THERETO. Begin with paying attention to your use of the first person, and "talking" to the reader with words like "you" and "your," and/or "talking" as the reader, with first-person headlines like "Do I need a Pro Version license?"

Stop, in any case, asking people here to tell you what needs to be done in the hope that whatever they don't happen to notice, or think of, can stay. It isn't that you can't ask such things around here; rather, it's that, under the circumstances, I simply doubt your sincerity. Had you actually read how to write a good Wikipedia article; and were you, then, asking, honestly, if you missed something after your having written an article which clearly evidences that you're trying to do it truly correctly, then that would be different. But that's not what happened, here.

This article needs to be fixed ASAP, or it needs to be removed. And the original author needs to stop peeing on all our legs and then telling us it's raining. He knows exactly what he's doing. We need to stop humoring him, immediately. Sorry to be so gruff, but this kinda' stuff really ticks me off... as it should tick off everyone here. Wikipedia's very credibility (which is already challenged by legitimate academia, which routinely refuses to accept Wikipedia citations in student papers) hangs in the balance.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 23:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mikogo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]