VoIP Guru 2011

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Voipfone

In regard to your insertion of ® to the article Voipfone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); please review Wikipedia's manual of style at MOS:TM. It specifically states "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Internet Service Providers Association may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio issue at Voipfone

I reverted the addition to Voipfone due to it being cut/paste content from http://www.voipfone.co.uk/About_Us.php - and that page states "Copyright 2004 - 2013, iNet Telecoms® Ltd All rights reserved."

Unfortunately, making a claim in an edit summary that "The company gave permission to use the copyrighted material" is not sufficient to address the copyright issue. Please review Wikipedia:Copyright violations for further clarification. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to Voipfone has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, editor. Your choice of name and editing history show that you're clearly in violation of WP:SPA, WP:ADVERT, and WP:COI (and probably others), regardless of your claims to the contrary in the editing notes of the company's page. Further editing of that page will lead to a request for sanctions. Thanks. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I would consider these drastic changes to be Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

I have emailed the company notifying them of these potential sanctions and the fact that the permission they granted for the use of the content has been ignored.

Just because a company says you can use the material doesn't mean you should use the material. It still reads very much like an advertisement and your editing history and choice of name clearly show you are not a neutral party. Also, we're not interested in what the company thinks of the possibility of you being blocked from editing. You're the one in violation of Wikipedia policy. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Voipfone Logo.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Voipfone Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Martin451 01:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disputed deletion of files and relevant neutral material

I contest the deletion of this file and page content.

The content was re written from a neutral point of view and was not marketing material. All of the information was fact and provided an outline of a company that have received public notability (WP:CORP) over the years including recognition by Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II. The company are pioneers VoIP and have played a major part on shaping the UK VoIP industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both:

   * independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and
   * reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries....

Voipfone is highly notable in the UK as an original developer of VoIP software and services to small business in a unique way.

They have been written about and broadcasted (both TV & Radio)extensively by independent, 3rd party publications including SKY TV, BBC World Service, The Guardian,VON magazine, Total Business Magazine etc.

Reference articles and other media can be found here: https://www.voipfone.co.uk/About_Us.php

Relevant information that has formed part of this page for a number of years has been removed without good reason and I considering a request for sanctions.

I would also dispute that i am in breach of any wikipedia policy and as that you be more specific and provide specific information to back up your accusations.

You don't appear to understand that this is an online encyclopedia and not an online magazine. We don't do lengthy articles on companies that aren't particularly noteworthy; winning a few awards in the country they operate in is probably enough to merit their inclusion in the encyclopedia, but not a significant article. We don't include promotional material or material similar in language to promotional material; this is not a space for free advertising.

So when some editors find the time to take a good look at the article and realize it's in violation of Wikipedia policies, we're faced with two options. One, we can spend hours pruning all the bad bits and replacing them to bring the article into compliance. Two, we can spend a minute to delete things that one SPA editor (that's you, by the way) has ruined and still bring the article into compliance. Is it terribly surprising that we chose the latter?

As for the policies you're in violation of, here's the ones I can think of off the top of my head. WP:COI, WP:PROMOTION, WP:SPA, and now WP:IDHT. I'll provide specific instances if you continue along this path, because I'll have to include them in the request for disciplinary action. Demonstrate that you're more than a shill for this company by doing things other than editing pages related to it or cease editing. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I find this whole situation very disheartening, it seems that its ok for other companies with less notability to have considerably over bloated pages for example vonage, i have spent an considerable amount of time editing this and other industry related articles with what i thought were improvements and relevant information.

By your own admission you admit its better to delete everything rather than tidy a page up which is in my opinion bad for the community and wikipedia.

Your comments and tone of your comments feel more like a personal attack than constructive criticism, would it not be better to help less experienced editors improve rather than to just destroy their work.

Do not bite the newcomers, and be aware that you may be dealing with someone who is new and confused, rather than a problem editor.

I therefore standby my previous statement and consider these drastic changes to be Wikipedia:Disruptive editing

Wikipedia articles are subject to change and revision without notice. Your contributions to any article do not give you any sort of ownership or "say" in the article beyond that of any other editor. This is standard Wikipedia policy (see WP:OWN), your failure to spend time learning these policies (WP:FAQ/Organizations may be of particular interest to you) before spending a significant amount of time editing articles are not an excuse. You are also not a new user, the account you're using to edit has been around for almost two years... and you claim to not be connected with the company that you've spent the entirety of your time on Wikipedia editing articles either directly for or in very close relation to. Perhaps we should add WP:Username_policy#Shared_accounts to your recommended reading?

If you think there's a problem with other articles, you're certainly welcome to edit those articles. If by some chance you actually really are a neutral party, this shouldn't be a problem. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 13:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I find your overall attitude appalling. I am actually starting to take offence to your comments which are becoming more about me as an editor and less about the content of the page in question, which goes against wikipedia's policies in its own right Wikipedia:DR#Focus_on_content.

You are yourself are not following wikipedias policies by just deleting things you don't like WP:DR#Follow_the_normal_protocol

You aren't an editor, you're a shill for this company. Deleting your work is perfectly acceptable, because Wikipedia standards define what you're doing as vandalism. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)