Hi Lahnfeear,
I added information for GroundWork Monitor Enterprise on the comparison chart.
The added content was removed due to " non-notable software with no information". What does "non-notable" refer to? Do we need a wikipedia page inorder to be considered notable software and allowed on this list?
If you would like more information on the product you can visit
gwos.com
Thanks in advance for the clarification. Nsb83 ( talk) 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I work for Opsera who produce the Opsview product. We've tried to make updates to the Opsview line in your monitoring comparison page in the past, but have had the changes reverted. Could you help us to understand the process for vendors to post changes so we don't fall foul of the conflict of interest/product promotion rules? Thanks Londonojb ( talk) 11:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Lahnfeear,
Added the accelops solution as per your suggestion. Thanks again for all the feedback and advice. Iqlas ( talk) 20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for the comparison chart and completeness of the information in that table. It's very useful information and takes lot of effort to compile such a big and changing list.
I would like to add our Accelops product information into your Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems table. I tried to add this earlier, but you seems to have removed the entry from the table. I am sure there must be some reason for it. What is the procedure to do that. If you would like to review the software by yourself, I can provide the software or demo to you. Can you please advice me on the steps, so that your table is complete with latest information on all the relevant companies Iqlas ( talk) 21:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
In regard to David44357, it would best to bring this to WP:COIN where editors experienced with such issues could help. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Further to what I just wrote at WP:COIN [1], things have altered somewhat over the past couple of years.
WP:COIN used to be quite investigative, focused on handling the problem via identifying (and hopefully shaming) the individual behind the edits. Since then, there have been changes in the interpretation of WP:COI in relation to the Wikipedia:Harassment policy (specifically, WP:OUTING).
So the focus is now on the goal of identifying and stopping non-neutral editing; demonstration of possible identity, beyond that sufficient to show affiliation, has to be tempered by the need to steer clear of WP:OUTING.
Plus, in any case, in WP:COIN we have to be cautious about breaking WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Even if promotional intent is blindingly obvious, it's safer to comment that the edit pattern exhibits that, rather than directly tackle the editor's presumed motives. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 14:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Lahnfeear. I find numerous company entries on Wikipedia - all of them are company specific. The vast majority are produced by company representatives. We wrote a company entry with external and 3rd party references that are similar to hundreds of other companies listed in wikipedia, least of which those referenced in the wikipedia subpage "Comparison of network monitoring systems". I did not see any difference in the content supplied by AccelOps as the source and that of other vendors. We listed clear 3rd party references and respective links which supported the information conveyed. We did not use verbose language or sales talk. We conveyed what our company does and what our product offers in terms of brief functionality with links. If a user wants to learn more about a company, why should they not be able to find such information in wikipedia. Please let me know what is unique in our entry to insist on AccelOps being nominated for deletion versus - SolarWinds, Hyperic, Netcordia, OPNET, PacketTrap... etc. Users searching for company information should be able to get at that information. And if a detail is in question - it should be communicated on a talk page with a request for proof or reference prior to Speed deletion nomination. Scottgwikip ( talk) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rosaheadshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lahnfeear,
I added information for GroundWork Monitor Enterprise on the comparison chart.
The added content was removed due to " non-notable software with no information". What does "non-notable" refer to? Do we need a wikipedia page inorder to be considered notable software and allowed on this list?
If you would like more information on the product you can visit
gwos.com
Thanks in advance for the clarification. Nsb83 ( talk) 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I work for Opsera who produce the Opsview product. We've tried to make updates to the Opsview line in your monitoring comparison page in the past, but have had the changes reverted. Could you help us to understand the process for vendors to post changes so we don't fall foul of the conflict of interest/product promotion rules? Thanks Londonojb ( talk) 11:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Lahnfeear,
Added the accelops solution as per your suggestion. Thanks again for all the feedback and advice. Iqlas ( talk) 20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for the comparison chart and completeness of the information in that table. It's very useful information and takes lot of effort to compile such a big and changing list.
I would like to add our Accelops product information into your Comparison_of_network_monitoring_systems table. I tried to add this earlier, but you seems to have removed the entry from the table. I am sure there must be some reason for it. What is the procedure to do that. If you would like to review the software by yourself, I can provide the software or demo to you. Can you please advice me on the steps, so that your table is complete with latest information on all the relevant companies Iqlas ( talk) 21:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
In regard to David44357, it would best to bring this to WP:COIN where editors experienced with such issues could help. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Further to what I just wrote at WP:COIN [1], things have altered somewhat over the past couple of years.
WP:COIN used to be quite investigative, focused on handling the problem via identifying (and hopefully shaming) the individual behind the edits. Since then, there have been changes in the interpretation of WP:COI in relation to the Wikipedia:Harassment policy (specifically, WP:OUTING).
So the focus is now on the goal of identifying and stopping non-neutral editing; demonstration of possible identity, beyond that sufficient to show affiliation, has to be tempered by the need to steer clear of WP:OUTING.
Plus, in any case, in WP:COIN we have to be cautious about breaking WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Even if promotional intent is blindingly obvious, it's safer to comment that the edit pattern exhibits that, rather than directly tackle the editor's presumed motives. Gordonofcartoon ( talk) 14:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Lahnfeear. I find numerous company entries on Wikipedia - all of them are company specific. The vast majority are produced by company representatives. We wrote a company entry with external and 3rd party references that are similar to hundreds of other companies listed in wikipedia, least of which those referenced in the wikipedia subpage "Comparison of network monitoring systems". I did not see any difference in the content supplied by AccelOps as the source and that of other vendors. We listed clear 3rd party references and respective links which supported the information conveyed. We did not use verbose language or sales talk. We conveyed what our company does and what our product offers in terms of brief functionality with links. If a user wants to learn more about a company, why should they not be able to find such information in wikipedia. Please let me know what is unique in our entry to insist on AccelOps being nominated for deletion versus - SolarWinds, Hyperic, Netcordia, OPNET, PacketTrap... etc. Users searching for company information should be able to get at that information. And if a detail is in question - it should be communicated on a talk page with a request for proof or reference prior to Speed deletion nomination. Scottgwikip ( talk) 23:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Rosaheadshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 05:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)