Talk:Simplified Technical English/Archives/2015

Shufra

Shufra creates professional pages also to discuss the subject of Simplified Technical English. However, these efforts have been mostly maimed and sabotaged for reasons I cannot think of except professional envy and intolerance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shumin Chen (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

On August 18, an anon removed a large chunk of information. It was then replaced by another anon. I then removed selected portions (+list item fixes, and 1 ref fix), with the edit summary: "I agree that not all that content should have been deleted, but I also agree that we shouldn't be endorsing a specific company. +fixes". That's my entire perspective, and I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

However, that diff is now being edit-warred back and forth. E.g. The anon who is reverting hasn't commented at all, but I assume they believe the extra information regarding Shufra should be retained in the article (?). Hopefully they, or someone else, can comment on why it should be retained. (Or, why they're reverting if it's unrelated to Shufra). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Shufra pages are more helpful and informative than any of the other links in the article. I see no reason why anyone would want to remove these, unless he/she is affiliated with one of those companies that claim to offer similar services but do not have the means to back it up. I am not affiliated with Shufra but at least these guys know what they are talking about. If anyone holds a grudge against them, get over it. 82.203.205.227 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding.

I'm a newcomer to this article, so my perspective is purely that of a Wikipedia-editor trying to clean up articles.

The problem as I see it, is that the sentence in the final paragraph – "Most companies require the services of an experienced service provider - Shufra [1] to successfully implement STE." – is an endorsement of a specific company. Now, if they were the only company that provides a certain service, then they would warrant mentioning. Or, if there was a reliable source citation stating that this company was exceptional within their industry, for some specific reason, then that could be stated. But at the moment, it's just an abstract endorsement.

Regarding the External Links section: Because Shufra is not the focus of the article, there should be a maximum of 1 link, to the most relevant page. It should be the page that provides the best additional information regarding "Simplified English", the focus of this article. Could you suggest which of the 2 links should be retained? (or suggest a different link?)

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the first "anon" who removed that paragraph, and I am doing so again. As the original author of that section and a member of the regulatory bodies that oversee the specification, I deem that paragraph to be out of scope with the original intention, which was to explain the official aerospace standard. The products mentioned (which include reference to a product that I am associated with) are not actually absolutely necessary for one to write in STE. They can be useful, but it is probably not a good idea to use Wikipedia as a venue for promoting products and services that could be useful. The aerospace STE committees do not endorse any products or services, nor do they take the position that such products and services are in any sense necessary. I certainly hold no grudge against Shufra or the products mentioned, especially since I am a developer of the Boeing checker.rwojcik 03:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs)

Thank you for that explanation. That should help us move forward. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've requested advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Shufra. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've received unsolicited email from several different sources complaining about this paragraph, even after reference to Shufra was removed. The problem is that the paragraph makes no sense in that section even if no specific product names are mentioned. RickWojcik 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

Currently, there are 3 links going to the same company (that is not itself the topic of this article), which is far more than the WP:External links guideline recommends. Which of the links would be the most helpful for readers, for us to retain?

• http: //www.shufra.com.sg/simplified-technical-english.php
• http: //www.shufra.com.sg/bsec.php
• http: //www.shufra.com.sg/

Ideally, the best link of these (or a better link, if there is something even better at their website) would be used as references. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Today, someone replaced http://www.boeing.com/phantom/sechecker/index.html with http: //www.shufra.com.sg/bsec.php
2. I have removed both Shufra links, and the Boeing link, from the "External links" section, primarily because they do not add any useful information to our article (WP:ELNO #1), and partially because they are primarily brochure pages at that site (WP:ELNO #4 and #5).
3. I do believe that there might be useful information within the Shufra website (and the Boeing website), but not at the links that have been included so far. Possibilities, are [http: //www.shufra.com.sg/ste-samples.php], [http: //www.shufra.com.sg/bsec-parser.php], and [http: //www.shufra.com.sg/ste-casestudy.php]. I would appreciate some input from a topic expert, preferably someone whom is not affiliated with the company, or someone whom is able to remain dispassionate.
4. Contributors who are affiliated with the company, should read WP:Conflict of interest before contributing any further. Contributions are welcome, but must follow our Content standards. Adding neutral content to the article, with links as citations, is vastly better than adding pure marketing links at the bottom.

Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

All references to Shufra on this page should be removed. The person who put them there is simply using Wikipedia to advertise his private business. RickWojcik 22:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• NOTE: A bot will now revert any additions containing links to this domain. If the party who continues posting those wants to have a discussion here about the links, that would be welcomed. If consensus emerges to allow one or more of them, it is a fairly easy procedure to do so, so the bot watch should not be seen as a means to stifle discussion on the subject; rather it is a means to encourage discussion to come here, rather than the pointless add-revert-add cycle we've been seeing. Arakunem^Talk 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
• Well, maybe not. Apparently this bot will not flag on links used in References, nor will it flag on "Undo" edits, both of which have been used to re-insert this link. Last resort is the SPAM blacklist. What say you on this? Apply to have that link added, in absence of meaningful discussion by those who insist on re-adding it? Or is watchlist-revert sufficient? Arakunem^Talk 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: The Shufra problem is back with a vengeance. There should be no links from this page to Shufra. The Reference section now contains multiple links to Shufra, which is using Wikipedia as a free form of advertising for itself, a blatant violation of the COI policy at Wikipedia. (RickWojcik 02:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs)
• I removed the references to Shufra. RickWojcik 17:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs)
• Once again, I have had to remove the Shufra references, which have been included for the purpose of marketing the services of a specific company--a clear violation of the Wikipedia COI policy. The ASD Simplified Technical English Maintenance Group is aware of this dispute and does not want the Shufra references connected with general information on the standard. I am a representative of that committee, and this matter is now under discussion by the committee, which endorses the removal of the Shufra material. That material should also be considered in violation of the trademarked name "Simplified Technical English". RickWojcik^Talk RickWojcik 03:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Link hijacked

[thread previously titled: "A notorious Russian spammer hijacked a link and changed it to an affilitated company. Is that a reason to "punish" the informative source?"]

So just revert to 24 h ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steguru (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

Some keep inserting advertising links to companies like Shufra and Argos Translations (see also above). I don't think that this article benefits from such links in any way, as there is no useful information on these websites, except for advertising. Stop adding such references. If you don't agree with this, please discuss here. Tobias Kuhn (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Solved

Many thanks to NTox and HU12, who investigated and solved the above problems, at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Simplified English. Now we can get back to writing and improving the actual article :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

More Spam

I requested protection for this articles, because of persistent and malicious spamming and attempts to conceal these spam edit by simultaneously doing minor changes on other parts of the article. The only official link is www.asd-ste100.org, but anonymous and other users keep adding links that probably belong to Shufra Consulting. Temporarily, such websites such as www.asdste100.org (without the hypen) are temporarily redirected to the official webpage to make the link look official, only to later redirect it to the Shufra website. This issue has been going on for some time, and they seem to try all kinds of tricks. They are also using different IPs each time. Tobias Kuhn (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tobias. I've added a new blacklist request, too. We should be fine, once the admins have a chance to check on those requests. (Protection might not be required, if the blacklist kicks in fast enough).

Links to current threads, and the archived thread, so that they're easier to find in future months: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 59#Simplified English (Aug 2012), RFPP (Dec 2012), MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#shufra again (Dec 2012).

HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

With just blacklisting, they might register new domains and use these. They have already used www.asd-stemg.org and www.asdste100.org for that purpose. So, I think it would be good to have semi-protection too. Tobias Kuhn (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood, however, the rules for when to semi-protect are quite strict, and this small amount of abuse doesn't qualify for permanent semi-protection, per WP:SEMI, so temporary semi-protection is all we might get. Blacklist additions are easy and effective, afaik. –Quiddity (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. Whatever solves the problem is OK with me :). I guess we can just see what happens, or do you think I should retract the request for semi-protection? Tobias Kuhn (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)