Talk:Nimbuzz

Awards Section

After requesting some NPOV assistance for this article, the awards section was removed in this diff with no reason given. I don't really understand why removing this section improves the NPOV of this article. In the absence of any explanation, I would prefer to add it back in. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In short, people simply don't care about most or all of those awards. At any rate, they should be included in the prose of the article if the award is notable. It not, they should be removed. This list is one of the reasons that the article was given the {{advert}} tag. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well in that case with that, and the other changes done, has enough improvement been made to remove the {{advert}} tag? JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been removed. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going assume good faith that John Broughton didn't pay very close attention to the article when he removed the advert tag. To put this to rest, I'm doing a cleanup of the article. My edit summaries explain why I'm removing what I'm removing. What I'm removing includes unsupported opinions such as the word "many", phrases like "for very low rates" that are only supported with a reference to Nimbuzz's blog and a non-notable blog, and app store links that are intersperced throughout the article seemingly at random that don't support the claim they're attached to.

I can go on if needed but if someone wants to challenge my edits, feel free to do so and explain yourself here so that we may discuss. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As a note to a new editor, this isn't a huge issue but creating an article where nearly half of the references lead back to Nimbuzz's website or blog may not be the best way to stay neutral. That many primary sources usually causes at least one of a few different issues. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

At the point when I moved the article to mainspace there were 8 out of 32 references to the blog. That was higher than I wanted, however this article was WP:SALTed for 3 or so years, and a number of the sources that I wanted to cite were no longer available. Ditto for the references that the other language versions of this article have. They no longer reside where they did when they were first written.

I do appreciate your assistance with the article. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be that the protection was still needed and this article should not have been created again. I can tell that this article is having some of the same problems [1] as it was deleted for to begin with.

Wikipedia requires that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that Wikipedia can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization.

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

A saying that comes to my mind is this: "If no one else wrote about this topic than why should we?". If a researcher looks, it should not be hard to find "third-party" or "independent sources", if the topic is notable. R00m c (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As I can not see the previous content, I can not comment on if this time around the same problems are occurring. What I can tell you is that I am independent of Nimbuzz, I saw that due to the WP:SALT that there was nothing where I felt there should be an article. And as such, I wrote one, I am willing to contribute further, and work together to improve the article. I believe the subject is notable, and should not be deleted. There are several IM programs with substantially less than 150 million users have articles here. I know, I know, WP:othercrapexists. That's why I'm still trying to improve both this article, and my understanding of how to edit wikipedia. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

5000 devices

I'm not sure why there's such an issue about this. The fact that Nimbuzz supports 5000 devices is clear, and supported by the references. There's exactly the same support for the 150 million users number, yet that's not being reverted.

I know that this number is notable, and should be in the article. However, I have not said that in the article, only in appealing to you to leave it in. It's a fact, it's verifiable, it's 6 words!

I offer another reference talking about how Nimbuzz is one of the few supporting Java based phones (it's a pity they don't actually go on to say that this is why the supported device number is so high). 3rd para: http://www.techberita.com/nimbuzz-reaches-150-million-worldwide-user-mark/730/ This is unlike "every other app" as you asserted in the edit summary when you first removed this verifiable claim. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, I simply don't think it's a notable claim. It's on every major app store and has a web app. Big deal. So does every other major app on the market. That you are so demanding that it be included in this article only makes me think that you may have some sort of ulterior motive here. I'm trying to assume good faith here but you haven't given any indication that this claim is a notable claim other than a few blogs mention it which is probably because they're regurgitating a press release.

On a side note, please keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that the "notable" I'm using is the same as WP:N because WP:N doesn't cover content, only subject inclusion. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you check the additional reference provided above, the quote "Nimbuzz supports over 5,000 devices across various platforms and is one of the few free messaging apps that have been designed for Java apps running feature phones." (emphasis added) shows that Nimbuzz is not like "every other major app on the market" in this regard. Here's a techcrunch article regarding the 5000 number; I'm not sure if you consider them a blog or not: http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/15/nimbuzz-hits-150m-emerging-market-users-puts-the-heat-on-facebook-in-asia/

I believe that it is a fact worthy of inclusion, and you clearly don't. I can't put it back in the article without violating WP:3RR, hence raising it for discussion. Somehow this is "demanding", and causing you to doubt my WP:AGF. I feel that I have been reasonable in my conduct here, even as my contributions have been removed as "fluff" and "advertorial", and having been told that I "don't get everything I want".

I asked for NPOV assistance on this article, and I remain appreciative of your help. The article is better for your edits. In regards to the 5000 devices fact, you win as my hands are tied. I take solace in the fact that this can't possibly be the longest ever discussion over 6 words in history. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Techcrunch (including its blog) is clearly a reliable source, and http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/15/nimbuzz-hits-150m-emerging-market-users-puts-the-heat-on-facebook-in-asia/ absolutely can be added to the article as a source/citation. I also note that WP:SELFPUB allows some citing of a company's own information, for some facts. Obviously this needs to be selective, but the flip side is that it is not true that such citations should be automatically removed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Again, regurgitating a press release bullet point doesn't imply that it's an important fact (and no, I don't think TechCrunch is a blog, exactly). Interestingly, the claim that it's "one of the few free messaging apps that have been designed for Java", seems like something that should be included. This is something we could have easily come up with in a discussion but instead, you're pushing 3RR and writing three paragraphs of text to tell me why I'm wrong. Instead of working on a compromise, we're doing this rigmarole because... well, I don't know why.

I think like many editors, you may be having some ownership feelings about the content of this article which I totally understand. I have to keep myself in check regarding articles I create because I feel strongly about my work. The problem here is that, as someone who obviously knows what they're doing but is editing from a new account, it seems like you're pushing hard to maintain an article that was advertorial when you published it.

I don't care if you take my suggestion but I suggest taking a step back and maybe moving to some other subjects for a short period of time. I think you might find that this small detail isn't as big of a deal as it might seem right now. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

John, no one ever said that such a citation should automatically be removed. Perhaps you're confusing my pointing out that the article relies heavily on primary sources with me saying that the given sources don't support that notion that a fact is noteworthy if the only references provided point to the subject itself (Nimbuzz) and an apparently small-time blog. I never even said that anything should be done about the number of primary sources used. Just pointed out to what I then thought was a new editor that it was something that can cause issues.

A new account that's controlled by someone who obviously has WP experience and that calls Nimbuzz, "a major player in the OTT market", created their first and only article that seemed like an advert (by more people than just me). Furthermore, that article subject had previously been salted for repeated creation of adverts. Jolt's article wasn't completely an advert, obviously, or it would have been nominated for G11. That same user asked for help with POV issues in his newly created article and I attempted to help but instead of us working on a compromise, he's here telling others why they're wrong and pushing 3RR. Call me crazy but I tried to help and I apparently even spurred the finding of a good source for claims made in the article (TechCrunch) that wasn't in the article before. If I'm doing something wrong, please be clear and help me understand what it is I'm doing wrong. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You seem really caught up on the fact that it was Nimbuzz that announced that they support 5000 devices, regardless of how many reliable sources have reported it since. I'm unsure how else such a stat would come to light. Looking across any remotely comparable product, up to and including Facebook, the relevant number ALWAYS comes from the primary source. They are the only ones who know for sure! It is the job of the reporters to look at the figures and decide if they appear correct, but short of someone actually getting hold of 5000 different devices and trying to install the product on them, in these instances we're going to have to accept the primary source for this type of figure. We report that Facebook has over 1 billion users, how do you independently verify that?

You are definitely correct in that I feel some ownership in regard to this article. I am perfectly aware that it's not "mine", however having actually done the research I believe that the 5000 devices fact should be in the article. I have been trying to bring you to that view, supported by the sources I've been providing. The quote that you like was in the original link at the top of this section that I directed you to.

I'm sorry that I tend to write a lot, but I'm trying to make my position clear. I did not tell you that you were wrong, I also was not "pushing" 3RR. My understanding is that if I were to add the content back in, that would violate 3RR and lead to me being blocked. Hence this discussion. I have accepted that the article was NPOV when published, that's why I asked for assistance. This is more for me than just these 6 words, I am seeking to gain experience in editing wikipedia. I don't overly care about the fact, I do care that I believe it's worth being in the article and I have failed to prove that to you. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you seem to be caught up on the newness of my account. I created it back in 2004, but why should that matter? This is my only Wikipedia account, and I believe my earliest edit is in 2010. Everyone gets to have their first article, and this one happens to be mine. You are correct that the references as originally in the article could have been better. I have offered additional references but it appears your mind is made up.

I say again, I am grateful for your assistance in improving this article. It is better now than when I first moved it to mainspace. However, I believe at this point still referring to the article as "rely[ing] heavily on primary sources" is not accurate. Oh, and by the only measure that matters (number of users) of over-the-top instant messaging providers, Nimbuzz is a major player.JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to respond point by point.

I'm not caught up with anything, in my opinion. I haven't seen any indication that the stat should come to light, even if its established. For instance, an IRL car may go through 120 tires per year and while that can be established, is it a noteworthy fact? Perhaps, but that would need to be established through secondary sources that clearly show that it's noteworthy. Comparing to other articles is covered specifically by WP:OTHERSTUFF so I won't touch on it here. We report that Facebook has over 1 billion users because no other social networking website has come anywhere close to that number and numerous reliable sources report that stat. Nimbuzz's 5000 device number isn't even in the same ballpark as the Facebook example.

You feel that it should be in. I don't. I've attempted to come to a compromise but I haven't seen a compromise from you.

I work for an international company that's a household name in any major country. I was lucky enough to occasionally work with that company's founder. He once said to me something along the lines of (in broken English), "If you can't explain your point in a quick and precise way, you need to better understand your position." I still don't know if he's correct but it's something I often think about in my responses. As for seeking assistance, that's what we're doing here. Communicating in a discussion is what Wikipedia is all about. You won't always get what you want (I sincerely didn't mean to offend when I wrote that to you before) just like I won't always get what I want. My point is that people will disagree with you and compromise is important because that middle ground is often the best course of action. This is why when I'm really stuck on an issue, I generally seek input from the people that I most vehemently disagree with on a regular basis.

Please don't think I'm stuck on an issue simply because I mention it. It doesn't matter that you have relatively few edits. I was simply pointing out to another user that I understand why people, including me, threw up some red flags when this article was created and seemed a bit advertorial. My pointing out that the article has several primary sources as references was simply a pointer/suggestion. I don't know if it was an overly helpful pointer for you, now that your understanding of WP and encyclopedic writing in general is obvious, but most new editors I deal with would have benefited more greatly from that pointer. There's nothing more to it. You've already made improvements to that area if using primary sources was even a negative on the article in the first place.

To sort of jump the tracks at this point, I'd like to say that I think that, as an editor with relatively few edits, you're doing an outstanding job. I spend a great deal of time and effort with new editors ("new" being defined in several different ways), and you're definitely doing a great job. Seeking assistance through established channels, communicating with others, doing your best to understand and apply policies and guidelines... that's not something I see regularly. I'm not trying to kiss your ass but even if we disagree, I just wanted you to know that I think you're doing great job and I respect your opinion.

Time for a beer or three. Have a great weekend. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

nowkiss.jpg (oh wait, this isn't Reddit)

It's funny, in hindsight I think that one of the reasons that my initial version ended up being so "factsheet like" is because I knew that previous versions of the article had been deleted for being non-NPOV. I tried to stick to the facts, with very little narrative, and this is why it felt so weird to me for people to call it advertorial. And then after seeking help for NPOV, you came along and from this side of the fence it seemed rather negative the way you cut and cut and derided the text I had written. You did force me to improve the justification and/or wording of many different parts of the article, and improve the citations therein. I would have preferred for that process to have felt less like I was constantly on the defensive, but the improved result is certainly welcome.

I feel we have made a compromise, sorry that you don't feel the same. If you check the article, I have already added the part that you liked from the reference all the way in the top post in this section, appropriately cited of course! In addition I have accepted your points regarding the notibility, and therefore inclusion of the 5000 devices fact.

To explain myself a bit further, I have read Wikipedia as a user pretty much since it started. And I created an account ages ago because I intended to write an article. However, I read up on various policies, and realised that my page would fail WP:NOTE hard. Over the years, I have on occasion, read through other parts of Wikipedia policy, so I know parts of it, and know where to look if I don't know something. What I didn't really have prior to this article, is actual experience in truely editing content, and applying the policies and guidelines. This is why I care less about the actual six words that have spawned this mountain of text, and more about the process undertaken here to determine their fate.

JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet another user has found the information published here to be advertorial. More alarmingly, Jolt has reinserted the 5000 device comment. I don't know what your intentions are here but I provided you with a compromise for that issue but you went ahead and did only what you want. If it's reinserted, I'll be notifying WP:ANI to shed more light on this issue. On a side note, Jolt, if you're going to write three paragraphs again to reply, don't bother. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're correct I shouldn't have readded it to the article. If it's ok with you, can you revert and then excise that part? Or I can do it. There were a lot of other small things that have been caught in the same revert that I feel are still improvements.JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel comfortable with you making the change. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Once again, I apologise. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Order of sections

Regarding the order of the sections, per WP:LAYOUT I can't see anything that says that history "always" goes before features. Is this stated somewhere I haven't been able to find? JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)