User talk:66.23.224.223

With regards to your posts on the AutoNOC AfD

Several people have tried to explain this to you, and I think they have made a fairly good attempt at doing so. Yet you still seem not to understand. This leads me to two possible conclusions about you. Which of the following is more correct?

1. You are editing Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting your product, for your own commercial gain. You fain misunderstanding of the concepts of Wikipedia in order to give your arguments some credibility, but in reality you simply have no interest in understanding or complying with the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. If this is the case, then I have nothing further to say to you. The AutoNOC article will be deleted, and that is that.
2. Alternatively, you came to Wikipedia expecting it to be a directory of all information that might be useful or interesting. You expected it to include a directory of software, with reviews and comments, like Softpedia or TUcows have. You assume that we have catalogues of products, and you quite understandably wanted to add your product to the list. If this is the case then there is hope for you, and possibly your AutoNOC article as well, providing you read, understand and act upon the information I have provided to you below.

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a directory of all information that might be considered useful or interesting. It is also not advertising space - you cannot just expect to be able to advertise your product here. Services like Softpedia and TUcows are very different, and Wikipedia is nothing like them at all. There are no "all-encompassing product category lists" on Wikipedia. Such things are not allowed.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its purpose is to document topics that have received substantial coverage in independent third-party reliable sources. This does not mean paid-for reviews, as you have suggested. Paid-for reviews are not independent of the person who paid for them. They are biased, and therefore cannot be considered as a reliable source. A reliable source is simply a source that has a reputation for editorial oversight, fact-checking and accuracy.

So what does this really mean? It means that a topic can only be included in Wikipedia if it has received coverage in a reputable newspaper, or it has been detailed in-depth in a published book written by an author considered to be an expert in a related field. Reliable sources do NOT include anything that your company has published, or paid to have published, as these would not be independent third-party sources.

You have noticed that many products of large corporations, as well as some free software, have articles on Wikipedia. That is only because those products meet the criteria that I've stated above. They either have been mentioned in a reputable newspaper, or they have been detailed in-depth in a published book written by an author considered to be an expert in a related field. Products of which this is not true are not included in Wikipedia. You have mistaken this for bias. But it is not bias, it is an essential method of assessing notability. It is the only method of assessing notability allowed. Can you imagine what would happen if we didn't have that inclusion criteria? We would be getting articles on every piece of software that anyone once started writing. I trust you can appreciate why that would be impractical.

So what about AutoNOC?

So what about AutoNOC? Well, take a look at the questions below:

1. Has AutoNOC received coverage in a reputable newspaper (or other similar news source)? Note that this does NOT include press releases, or anything else that your company has written.
2. Has AutoNOC been detailed in-depth in a published book written by an author considered to be an expert in a related field?

If the answer to either of the above questions is yes, then congratulations, AutoNOC can have an article on Wikipedia! Please provide full details of this coverage ASAP, so that it can go into the article before it gets deleted. The AfD on this article is already several days old, so we'll be racing against the clock to get the reliable sources in there in time. —gorgan_almighty 10:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Three points ... (1) Print applications and published books are basically dead long-term so this is a stupid policy. (2) the overwhelming amount of similar such media is merely purchased by vendors. If you go to a newspaper or magazine and ask them to review a product or cover it they will basically ignore the request until you purchase $10,000 to $100,000 in advertising from them, at which point they will become quite interested in covering the product, usually favorably. So this actually increases commercialization (3) And most importantly ... you aren't applying this same criteria to the NMS or free software in the list that you are keeping! We aren't going to purchase $50,000 in advertising in order to request a magazine review the technology merely to get an entry listed in Wikipedia and it is kind of ridiculous that this appears to be a requirement to keeping an entry when few of the others do not. We have actually received coverage however in one place, so we are posting that link.

We were able to dig up a published award AutoNOC received and referenced it on the page as per this request. We still believe it is a foolish requirement to be included in an NMS list. You should click on how many pages on that NMS list that have nothing of this sort?

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 18:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)