Talk:Applied Media Technologies Corporation/Archive 1

Neutrality & NPOV

Please don't delete tags added until the problem is fixed. This article reads like an ad, and was clearly created by someone involved in the company. --Bill.matthews 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was created by a former client. The article is in no way anything other than factual and is not substantially different in style compared to articles like Sirius Satellite Radio. There is no problem; you address no particular issue with the page, and leave no indication what information you see as biased in order to "solve the problem"

First, please sign all your comments. As for the problems, all of the claims made in the article lack sources. Comments like 'the service does not suffer from rain fade' beed citations. And generally, citing the website itself wouldn't be considered a reliable source. Please take a little time and read through Wikipedia:Cite_sources about how to cite sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources about what might be considered a reliable source.

Also, the article feels like an advertisement, as is demonstrated by your spamming of the links in several other articles. That's the reason for the neutrality tag. --Bill.matthews 20:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added several more citations; who else other than the company's site would you like me to cite regarding their products? Additionally, I'm not spamming links. I'm adding links to a new page in the areas where it makes sense to have it. Just as AMTC is every bit as much of a competitor to Muzak as is DMX Music, XM Satellite Radio, etc..., it is listed in the same place. Likewise, I included a list of AMTC's competitors on this article as well to maintain the same group of companies on all articles. Why is it spamming to add a link to a page just because I created it, when it belongs there?

You say the article feels like an ad. I've removed virtually every adjective from the article. If you think there's still something wrong, either tell me what you have a beef with, or fix it yourself, rather than placing a giant tag on the article. If the author of the article can't fix it, and nobody else will fix it, what, is your judgement alone enough to dispute the content of the article forever? Start pointing out phrases that aren't fact, if you can, and I'll change them. In the meantime, if I'm not allowed to remove the tag, what, am I supposed to let you taint my article forever with it until I get you to agree with me? What makes your POV on the subject any higher priority than mine?

JaedenStormes 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of adjectives, or of changing a specific word- Statements like "Product X is better than Product Y" is a point of view- The point behind wikipedia is to NOT say those things, but to link, if necessary, to where other people do so.

So, in the Keith Olbermann Article, it doesn't say- Olbermann blah blah.. It says Fox commentator Bill Oreilly says that Olberman blah blah.

It's not a matter of his POV being better than yours.. It's that the idea of wikipedia is to be neutral, not balanced or necessarily the most concise. It's better to point ot a blog that says XYS, than say it yourself.

I think this revision is better. Barring complaints, I think we can drop the tag, assuming it's not re-edited in a biased way.

E1ven

Great job! --Bill.matthews 02:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Looks much better! I've removed the tag. --Bill.matthews 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)