Talk:Embarcadero Technologies

Marketing edits

I received an email:

Why do you keep reverting my changes for Embarcadero Technologies, you just erased all my work!

Please contact me asap, [redacted]@embarcadero.com

I am the online marketing manager here and my boss just came to me after I told her I did all this work and said "what work?"

The edits I reverted violated a couple of Wikipedia's policies. First, you're using Wikipedia as your advertising medium. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Second, as an employee of Embarcadero, particularly one responsible for marketing, you have a conflict of interest in editing this article; i.e. "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." See WP:COI.

Your aim is to promote Embarcadero's products. There's nothing wrong with that, but it conflicts with the Wikipedia's goal of producing an unbiased encyclopedia. A COI does not necessarily disqualify you from editing the article, but it's strongly discouraged, and other editors will be more likely to revert your edits when they see a COI, and note the biases.

Your edits have been loaded with bias, hyping the products in marketing language and repeatedly salting the article with the Embarcadero URL. I understand, that's the sort of thing you're paid to do, but a Wikipedia article is the wrong place for it. TJRC (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there where I add my comments? I'm new to this and want to do this right. I am MORE than happy to make the lanague in the page NON BIASED, NO HYPE, just plain INFORMATION, please let me know what else I need to do in order to make that happen, this is really important to me and how I can publish information about these efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findling67 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestions (others may have different opinions):

• Read WP:Five pillars, which is the basics of what this project is about. Make sure you understand it.
• In particular, read the specific policies WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:COI WP:NPOV, and any others that have already been pointed out to you. Understand them.
• At least for now, leave this article alone. Your edits are too sweeping, and as already pointed out, have a conflict of interest with it. Edit other articles where you have no conflict. Furthermore, edit them in a way that you have no conflict in. For example, spamming the data modeling article with links to Embarcadero, as you did here and here, doesn't count.
• If you insist on editing this article, do so only after you have some experience, say a month or two, with Wikipedia and demonstrated that you understand its policies. Make your edits a little at a time and over a long period. That will allow other editors to correct, rather than having to massively revert. It's too time-consuming to edit a revision that's replete with policy violations; the most efficient way to remove the violations is to revert the edits in full, and that's what you've been seeing. Most editors do not have the time to winnow through a huge poor edit, separating the wheat from the chaff, and the only practical way to remove the chaff is to revert. If you edit with a shovel, other editors will revert with an axe.
• Don't take the reverts you're bound to see personally. You're a marketing guy whose job is to advocate for your employer. Marketing hype is probably steeped into you. You don't notice it like a fish doesn't notice it's in water. But it jumps out at the rest of us, and will be reverted. Here's just a few examples of your marketing hype: Use of biased words and phrases such as "rich"; "leading", "deep", "best" and many many others; adding links soliciting readers to download from Embarcadero; salting the article with the Embarcadero URL over and over and over again. These are the kinds of edits you've been making that you seem to think are "NON BIASED, NO HYPE, just plain INFORMATION," when to any unbiased reader, they clearly are not. To tell you the truth, I'm doubtful whether you can competently edit this article, given your conflict of interest. TJRC (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I did not find the page to read like ad copy, and it contains a lot of useful and unbiased information. He may be a marketing guy, but you're some guy who seems to hate corporations to the point where you can't read anything objectively. I came here looking for a run-down on the company before applying for a job, and found the page packed with info, not hype. Take a chill-pill, put your rants in the deep-freeze and let someone more neutral take up the task of objecting to ???. --Solidpoint (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

LOGO?

The logo appears to have been deleted. Would someone kindly replace it? -128.61.83.190 (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

FastCode reference

"Delphi is development environment for software developers and database application developers who need to maintain software applications. Parts of the Runtime Library (RTL) were replaced with contributions made by the cummunity project FastCode which provided compatible but faster replacements." This is the only paragraph about Delphi in the entire article. If I were going to mention one thing about Delphi, it wouldn't be FastCode. It doesn't even get this much mention on the Delphi page itself. That has 4 paragraphs about Delphi 2006 alone, with not one reference to FastCode.

Seems to me that the references that are on the Delphi page are sufficient, and this should be removed from the EMB page. Blwhite (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Owner change

The owner changed (or changes, not sure about the date it'll be effective) to a company named Idera. I already put a sentence in the hostory, but sicne I'm a bit unsurew about details I left the box alone.--79.213.140.25 (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing

I placed the paid contribution tag on the page as per some off-wiki evidence that confirms the company hired freelancer(s) to edit these pages. I have shared the details with @MER-C, GeneralNotability, and Praxidicae: so please don't remove the tag without rewriting the page from a natural point of view. GSS ^💬 06:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@GSS: That's wonderful. Can you please share additional details on which specific edits or portions of the article are impacted by your evidence? —Locke Cole • t • c 06:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the template again, per the documentation there: if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article (emphasis added). Are you certain you didn't mean to apply {{Undisclosed paid}} instead, which, oddly, does not seem to require the same things? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@TJRC: This is the talk page, per the instructions at Template:Paid contributions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), you are required to explain what is non-neutral about the article ("If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."). Do not re-add the template until you can meet this requirement. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has been started. See above. In the meantime you are edit-warring. Not only did you violate WP:3RR with these three consecutive reverts, after you were warned you went on to conceal that warning and revert a fourth time.

Stop. Discuss. And leave the tag alone pending discussion. TJRC (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion in this section where vague claims of paid editing are made, and multiple editors are pinged who supposedly have details about this, leaving other editors in the dark? Absolutely not. Adding that template, until actual details about what is violating NPOV, is vandalism. I'm not even sure why you're involving yourself in this, as you weren't even ping'd as being an editor with any knowledge (which means you literally should not be adding this template unless you, too, independent of @GSS:, found this "evidence" of paid editing). In which case: what parts of this article were paid and need attention? WP:3RR does not apply to vandalism which your edits are. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: see also the section I've just brought up at User talk:Locke Cole § Paid contributions dispute. (Sorry for the mild content fork, but I believe what I brought up was more appropriate for a user talk page.) Perryprog (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: GSS has disappeared and refuses to elaborate on what issues they see. I see no issues beyond the citation issues I already tagged myself that justify having that template on this page. Now it's your turn: what neutrality issue is there with this page that you think needs to be resolved? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Having seen the off-wiki evidence I can say without a doubt the tag applies and that it's largely PR gibberish based off of press releases and reads like an extension of their website. I'm not going to spell out each bad edit. Your extremely WP:POINTy editing is getting extremely tiresome and disruptive. VAXIDICAE💉 03:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: You do know that WP:NPA and WP:CIV are policy, right? If you don't like discussing what your (or GSS's) concerns are, you can just leave, that's also an option for you. At any rate, it shouldn't take days of waiting, repeatedly removing the template and being blindly reverted by people who also can't answer the most basic question the template has: What content concerns about the article are there that prompted the addition of the template that you want addressed to remove it? Not a very high bar for you to reach, but somehow it took four days to get what I will at least describe as a "better answer"... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to where I attacked you or was uncivil. Calling out disruption as being disruptive and your pointy edits (I'll remind you of this, which is pure WP:POINT) is neither an attack or uncivil. And I have answered you, no one is obligated to point out each and every way something is promotional and just because you dislike an answer does not mean you haven't received an answer. Thanks. VAXIDICAE💉 14:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I know you'd love to turn this around on me, which you're trying really hard to do, but my behavior is not the problem here. Repeatedly placing {{paid contributions}} without informing concerned editors what specific neutrality issues there are is disruptive and unacceptable. For four days this tag has been placed (with short periods where it was removed, by me, when nobody could provide any guidance about what needed fixing). Only now are we starting to get some feedback on what issues you claim exist. Accusing me of disruption in bad faith is a personal attack. You cite a diff link to an example of hyperbole and that's your evidence of disruption? See also: WP:ASPERSIONS. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)