Andrey4wiki

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

deleted Techinline_Remote_Desktop

Hello Stfile,

I am the author of an article about Techinline Remote Desktop which was most recently deleted by you, and I had a couple of objections about which I was hoping to touch base with you. Techinline Remote Desktop is a remote support/screen sharing service which is in the same category of professional IT tools such as GoToMeeting, Fog Creek Copilot, Teamviewer, LogMeIn Rescue, GoToAssist Express, and a number of others. If you google "remote support" or "remote support tools", you will get an idea of where it stands in this industry.

Most of the mentioned remote support tools, despite not being significantly prominent in the industry, have their personal Wikipedia artciles. If you ask a regular Wiki reader if he/she is aware of Fog Creek Copilot or Teamviewer, for example, I am confident that an overwhelming majority of people will respond that they are unaware of them. However, there are people who rely on such services, which include Techinline Remote Desktop, to do their everyday work and it is for these people that such articles are published.

When putting together my article, I have followed the strict guidelines laid out by Wikipedia and have avoided any advertising or promotion of Techinline. Furthermore, I have included numerous services which are similar to Techinline and have focused on explaining the technology and security barriers in place instead of any marketing terms. The article was written with the main goal of helping users of Techinline get familiarized with the service and its technology. I have followed the format of other mentioned tools when putting together my article.

Concerning the sources I used and which were flagged as being "not notable enough", some such as Softpedia have their own Wiki articles as well, and therefore I cannot understand the logic which was followed in accepting these sources on Wiki and then not allowing them to be used when supporting another article. I have referred to some of the other articles of remote access tools, and do not see any notable sources (often only official sources are used):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeamViewer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_creek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotomeeting

Why is it that some articles are allowed to stay with practically no 3rd party sources or any well-known media sources which I am sure you regard as notable? This seems extremely unfair and biased in our case. I've used practically no official sources and have relied on articles published about our service, and you have turned this down. Please let me know which IT and tech sources you personally regard as "notable enough" to be cited on Wikipedia and if possible, please show me Wiki articles which are based on such sources. I am sure the percentage of these articles will be slim.

Again, the way my article was treated and all the work I have put forward in trying to get my work published in a fair and unbiased manner is extremely upsetting. I am hoping that you can reinstate Techinline Remote Desktop based on what I have mentioned above or provide me with reasons why this cannot be done. Even the 2-week long deletion discussion had only 2 people vote that the article should be deleted, yet you proceeded to delete it immediately yesterday. I look forward to your response and assistance in this matter.

Thank you, Andrey4wiki (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You said that I should have relisted the article due to someone adding facts late on, but there were no edits to the article since 26th of May. Can you please clarify this?

In respect of other articles, if you feel that they are not notable enough, please nominate them for deletion (see WP:DPR for details of the deletion process).

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your product, and you should write about it on your own website. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to my post, nowhere did I mention that anything was added after the 26th of May. I have included only 2 official sources (Techinline website) out of 8 or 9 sources, and for some reason they were regarded as "non-notable" even though other Wiki articles have used them. Also, nowhere did I use any advertising: please check the article's sections to find any advertising whatsoever. I simply created sections about Techinline's security and connection process. This is the same format used by other products which are included in Wiki. Again, it is biased and unfair to allow similar products have their own Wiki articles (even though to an average Wiki reader they are meaningless and therefore are "non-notable" in your view) and remove Techinline. I believe there should be some consistency when approaching such matters, and therefore am asking to reinstate my article. If it requires any changes, please let me know so that I can format it properly. However, please do not ask me to remove any advertising because there is none. Thanks again.Andrey4wiki (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to your post, I'm referring to the fact that you chose the option in my message system that said "If there was a change to the article very late in the discussion and you think I should have extended the discussion to allow for that, then please leave me a message quoting the exact name of the page that I deleted."

Please be aware that this is Wikipedia, not Wiki.

I'm happy with my decision to delete the article and repeat my advice to nominate other pages for deletion if you feel they are inappropriate. You may also wish to read the essay WP:WAX. If you feel that I have not followed the deletion process correctly, please feel free to open a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)