Revision as of 02:15, 26 August 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on July 26, 2006. The result of the discussion was Delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Exact figures needed

I am looking for the exact attendee and both numbers for the 4th show. Also the attendee numbers for the first 3 shows seem to be rounded. Thanks. --roy<sac> .oOo. 12:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability - Advert - References

• Notability: Tell me that an industry specific tradeshow and expo with over 8,000 attendees is not notable. Give me a break. Please try to be unbiased and realistic. Also see this page. It's a google search for "ecomxpo", excluding the domain "ecomxpo.com" from the results. Also the leading companies in the space disagree on the notion that eComXpo is not noteworthy and not only attend the conference, but also have booths and send their executive officers (including CEO's) to be a keynote speaker.

• Advert: what facts about the tradeshow are exaggerated? Please sepecify. If a list of facts can be interpreted positive than it is not an advert as per Misplaced Pages. If you dislike it, is irrelevant.

• References: I don't want to repeat myself, so here are links to discussion that are related to references for the subject affiliate marketing and internet marketing in general. disussion 1, discussion 2, discussion 3, discussion 4, discussion 5

I hope that the editor who was quick with plastering the article with templates will take the time to go over this arguments and comment on each of them with constructive and opjective responses. --roy<sac> .oOo. 22:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote User:Calton: "restore tags - the world is full of trade shows -- what makes this special? -- this reads like nothing more than a brochure, and the references are a joke. Other than that, no problem" See.

This is a major tradeshow of the affiliate marketing industry. Only because you don't like tradeshows does not mean that they are not noteworthy. I will not go into the discussion about tradeshows with you, because I don't know your professional background to know where to start.

"reads like nothing more than a brochure" This is not the same as an advertisement. A brochure stating facts would even be perfect to cite from for Misplaced Pages. All the hard work already done. What Misplaced Pages is not the place for sales copy which makes over the top claims and uses exaggerations.

The references are to some extend a bit week, except for one. I agree on that. I am still looking for good reverences that are relevant in the context of the Misplaced Pages article and not about who is going to the show or about how the show was. However, the references were used to backup the statements about the attendees, something that always comes from the event organizer himself. I did not want to add stuff like microsoft announcing their participation in the event with a booth and stuff like that to show that even industry giants such as MS consider the tradeshow important enough to have a presence there. --roy<sac> .oOo. 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a major tradeshow of the affiliate marketing industry. Only because you don't like tradeshows does not mean that they are not noteworthy.

The second assertion is pure projection on your part and the first fall under "Because I said so". Actual multiple reliable sources is what is actually required for the latter -- and self-references and press releases don't even come close.

As I stated before, are the press releases used as reference for the attendee figures and nothing else. And you are wrong regarding press releases. You obviously don't know what a press release actually is. It is always self-referenced, because businesses issue press releases about themselves and what they did and do. Press releases are for the press to be used for their articles. They are often even published as is without any modifications. If I reference to a publication that published the press release, then I would not reference the original source, but a copy. Now the fact that a press release was re-published by somebody you heard about is for many changing the whole thing and makes the release a reference from a reliable source. This is an assumption, which is not necessarily true. High quality publications often (not always) double check at least the validity of the facts stated in the press release. The recent Apple stock scandal demonstrated nicely how poorly this validation is actually done in reality. --roy<sac> .oOo. 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the same as an advertisement. A brochure stating facts would even be perfect to cite from for Misplaced Pages

Wrong, especially given the spin as "facts" and not "features": a plain listing of features unencumbered by sourced commentary, analysis, reviews, or real-world impact pretty much makes it a brochure -- and the purpose is of such a brochure is (wait for it) advertising.

Based on your definition are most articles at Misplaced Pages an "advertisement". The article is a stub and requires more references, true, I admited that and never claimed otherwise. The article is also fairly new and by no means perfect. Notability in context to the subject it is embedded in (affiliate marketing) was in my opinion established. --roy<sac> .oOo. 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Try actually dealing with the problems identified by the tags instead of Wikilawyering about why you don't have to. --Calton | Talk 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I am actually trying to do. You are long enough an editor yourself that Wikilawyering should actually not be necessary. I added some links to some discussions about a much bigger issue when it comes to verifyability and references for articles to the subject of internet marketing in general. Some adjustments to some of the related Misplaced Pages guidelines were a result of that.--roy<sac> .oOo. 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability

8,0000+ attendees for a conference that is for a internet marketing niche audience, making it the industries largest event is not notable or important? What do people that actually work in that industry think about it? Lets see:

• http://www.revenuesource.com/marketing-events-conventions/
• http://www.affiliatemarketingconference.org.uk/
• http://onlinebusiness.about.com/od/startingup/a/calendar.htm
• http://www.affiliateguide.com/events.html
• http://affiliatefairplay.com/newsblog/2006/07/10/industry-experts/
• http://affiliate-events.blogspot.com/
• http://www.affiliatebuyersguide.com/index.php?cat=7
• http://www.webmarketingassociation.org/blog/events/
• http://www.e-sema.com/index.php/en/General
• http://www.marketing-conferences.com/internet_marketing_conferences/index.html
• http://www.cumbrowski.com/CarstenC/NewsAndEvents.asp
• http://www.affiliatetraction.com/affiliate-learning-center-industry-events.php
• http://www.amwso.com/events.php

Just to mention a few. Notability as per WP:N is established. Keep in mind that notable should not be confused with "famous" or "popular". Notable is more like to understand as "importance", importance within the subject it is about and not from a global or national (e.g. United States) perspective. --roy<sac> .oOo. 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - hangon

As I stated already here. This is no repost of a previous article. And I don't agree that this article qualifies for speedy deletion and also not for a normal deletion IMO. --roy<sac> .oOo. 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Washington Post

I found this article in the Washington Post if anyone is interested. If you are looking for more sources, you need to find someone with a LexisNexis subscription account, I'm sure there are more out there. Burntsauce 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The link worked just fine. What's funny though is that it is the same article as the one posted by MSNBC. But the writer is not from eComXpo, nor is it a press release. The article was written by Amanda C. Kooser of Entrepreneur.com. She must have sold it to both papers. Journalism in action, just as I stated in the AfD. Thanks man. I updated the reference in the article to point out that the one source was actually published by two major publications. --roy<sac> .oOo. 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed COI

The author revealed in the AfD that he has a conflict of interest. Although he admits no remuneration, he does admit a professional relationship with the sector, speaking with officials from the company regarding Misplaced Pages, and having participated in an eComXpo event as a panelist. Be advised. Thanks! --Cerejota 09:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not "revealed" a conflict of interest during the AfD, read it again. I am a blogger, that is considered press in the internet marketing industry. I have business dealings with hundreds of people and companies. I also have years of experience in internet marketing and related technical subjects and asked for my opinion and advice. The COI with eComXpo is as much of a COI for me as with any other affiliate marketing and search marketing conference and with any major business in the industry, including most affiliate networks and virtually all search engines. What is wrong with you? Are you unhappy that the AfD does not go the way you wanted it? Did you ran out of reasonable arguments and decided to go on a "campaign" based on wrong assumptions? What was that stupid placement of the COI template on my talk page? My talk page and parts of my talk archive are full with COI discussions with other editors and Wiki admins in general. If you are looking for COI, look at my user page. I list and flagged all the articles where I made edits and actually COI applies to public. From my bio, which can be found there as well, did I make it clear and transparent where I do have conflicts and where I do not. Gee.. --roy<sac> .oOo. 11:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a misreading of COI. If you are a journalist specialized in this field, even a hobbyist one, you have a COI. COI is not necessarily a bad thing, and I do appreciate how forthcoming you are with the matter. Please do not accuse me of misusing tags, as I have clearly not misused it. Furthermore, your comments are a failure to assume good faith. This is not personal, this is defending the project from becoming a business directory, which it is not. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have an interest in the subject, that is not the same as a Conflict of Interest. Conflict of Interest has to do with bias and the inability to comply with the guideline of neutral point of view. There is so much stuff going on in the industries that are of interest for me, from a writers point of view as well as general interest in the dynamics of those things. I don't consider a lot of the stuff notable and worth the time to spend on to craft a good article for Misplaced Pages. I don't as much as you that Misplaced Pages is getting degraded to a business directory where every little blimp of a company has an article. That is what sites like Business.com, the Yahoo! Directory or the Yellowpages are for. I don't have even the time to spend on articles about subjects that don't matter. None of us is being paid for the time we spent at Misplaced Pages. I also don't get any other benefit out of it, except bad words from my own peers and mistrust from editors here. All in all does it result in more time spent for free on things that have nothing to do with the content in Misplaced Pages. Why am I doing it anyway? Because I think that it is a good thing and useful to people. Not everything useful and good should have a price tag attached to it and prevent access to it by people who can't pay for it. That may sounds like a conflict of interest to you, hearing it from the mouth of somebody who calls himself a marketer, but the funny thing is, that it actually isn't. I simply have a different attitude towards things than many others. I also have the habit to be straight forward, some call it blunt, but I prefer things spoken out and on the table to be able to tackle the issues effectively. So yes, I assumed good faith during the discussion and was honest, forthcoming, consensus seeking and trusted your ability to be reasonable. The faith suffered severely when you started to turn away from the debate to go on a campaign that was off topic and to be blunt again, just wrong. You might want to take a step back and look at the things that happened from a 10 miles from above perspective. Once you did that, we might be able to discuss things again with the possibility to come to a consensus that satisfies both of us and any other involved editor as well. Before we know it, we might be able to get a good article out of it in return, maybe even featured article, who knows. --roy<sac> .oOo. 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You misread WP:COI. You have a professional interest in the field, even if you do not have a direct financial COI, would have a COI. However, you admit to being a panelist in one of their conference, and to be affiliated to InXpo: at the very least you have an interest (hence conflict of) in this conference being viewed in a good light, as your CV cannot bear the weight of having participated in a conference of dunces.

1. I am not affiliated with InXpo in any way, you mix something up here.

2. I have been a lot of things in many not notable events, hence it would be irrelevant for my CV. Its as relevant as putting my ASCII art talents in a CV as marketer. --roy<sac> .oOo. 01:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Although you reverted it, you engaged precisely in one of the practices barred by COI: "citing oneself". In all my time in wikipedia I haven't met a more clear cut case. You can definitely edit wikipedia neutrally and engage in all things, however, other editors must be alerted as to your COI. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:COI, there is an important distinction between an personal interest and a business (or political, etc.) interest. The first is generally acceptable, because it does not inherently conflict with Misplaced Pages's interest, hence it is not a COI. I have a personal interest in database programming, and I have written articles on the subject, but that does not prevent me from editing, say, the mySQL article. Cumbrowski listing his own page as a reference might be a COI (though not necessarily), but other than that I see no reasonable grounds for declaring a COI. I'm removing the COI tag to avoid misleading readers into believing that the article is substantially biased, which is essentially what the tag does. — xDanielx /_C 07:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference here. Roy participated as a panelist in an eComXpo, which means he probably has the interest (hence conflict of) this being held as notable. He can now say "panelist in pioneering web exposition". It must be noted that he used his own personal website as source at one point. The COI is clearly established. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Can you link me to wherever it is you're getting such information? More importantly, can you show that Roy's contributions were so substantial that the article as a whole could possibly be considered "biased"? Even after you've deleted 75% of the article's contents? Thanks — xDanielx /_C 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel: He refers to this AfD discussion (second "keep", last two comments), more information about what I did exactly here. I just came back from another tradeshow and saw this... As stated earlier, I did not receive payment or any other compensation for it. I got 3 coupons that granted access to recorded presentations, which I gave all away for free to newbie's in affiliate marketing for educational purposes. I was not ask by eComXpo to participate in the panel (for the 4th event), nor did I asked for any "speaker slot" at the conference. The host of the panel asked me to do it, because of my technical background. You will notice, that my short presentation prior the main discussion is about technology used for communication with affiliate partners. The link in the article itself was a link to my personal blog (a post from April 2006 after the 3rd event of the show), which has nothing to do with my business and resides on a non-commercial domain, which serves the purpose of providing information about ASCII/ANSI text art and related subjects, as well as for the preservation of this old form of art (in computer terms) and the educate people (especially the younger generation today, who did not experience this time period) about this IMO important part of computer history. If you look at my userpage, you will find that I am contributing to a number of articles that are related to that subject and that I also created a number of articles as well. If this is considered COI, 99%+ of all Misplaced Pages articles are COI. I don't know any Wikipedians who only create or expand articles to subjects they don't know nothing about or have zero interest whatsoever in. AfD's are the only exception to my knowledge, but I am talking about the creation and expansion of articles and not the removal, which would lead to an empty Wiki. As I stated on this talk page to editor Cerejota already. I find his behavior very disrupting and his argumentations fundamentally flawed. Once he was proven wrong in detail with undeniable evidence, he heads off to start another attack from somewhere else. I am unable to assume any good faith anymore. All I see is a editor who wants to get this article deleted at all cost for reasons that are beyond me. I am starting to believe that there must be a strong personal or professional interest on his part, to explain the means and the extend of his actions. He does not disclose his identity (only that he supposedly speaks 7 languages and is located somewhere in the northern hemisphere, which he claims never to have left yet) nor what his relationship to the subject is, so I could only guess, what I don't, because I do not have any evidence to backup any allegations (other than his visible actions at Misplaced Pages) against him. I see that he removes everything from the article that would not be considered vandalism with a 100% consensus to get as close to a deletion as he can and to criple the article to an extend that the tags he added to the page make up more content than the article itself. He also removed important information that were referenced and information, which can only be provided from the primary source (exact # of attendees). I will not restore this content nor place a vandalism warning on Cerejota's talk page due to his COI allegations against me. I will seek help who will be able to determine, if his claim is justified and if his actions are considered vandalism or not. There was already a debate with an almost unanimous consensus, excluding Cerejota and user Calton (who might would adjust his opinion, because of the references that were brought forward after his initial vote). I tried everything to come to a consensius with this editor, but unfortunately without success. I never experienced that before. What are the possible options for this case? If you have any suggestions Daniel, please let me know. --roy<sac> .oOo. 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I contacted another editor and an admin who are both actively involved with the COI policy here at Misplaced Pages to determine if WP:COI applies to this case or not. I also asked for advice and help to find answers to the question, how to resolve the other obvious problems at hand and to determine, if the actions of User:Cerejota are in violation with Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies (such as vandalism) or not. --roy<sac> .oOo. 12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the recording from the panel . Thanks for making me looking it up, because I forgot to refer to it from the page on my website that is actually RELATED to the subject of affiliate marketing (among other subjects).--roy<sac> .oOo. 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining things for me. I'm not sure how best to resolve this, but in light of recent editing activity I'm convinced that this is not an issue me and you could easily resolve with Cerejota, at least not without false compromise. I hope that third parties will be able to mediate the conflict. — xDanielx /_C 00:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I notified editor User:Jehochman and administrator User:Durova and asked for help to resolve this. I know that they both are involved in projects related to WP:COI problems and know better than I do what the appropriate steps in this case are. I am not sure if the COI notice board is the right place, but we will find out. I appreciate your efforts to help making the article to eComXpo a better article. I have not bumped into each other before. Are you interested in the subject of internet marketing and working on the content in Misplaced Pages about that subject? If you want to do something productive, have a look at the article to affiliate marketing. It was already reviewed by several editors and is almost a candidate to become a good article. It failed only because of some minor improvements in language that were needed. Others and me fixed already all the other things that were pointed out. A number of editors who are not involved in the subject looked already over it and tweaked it, but the more editors checked it, the better. The tone could also be tweaked, although I didn't know what to change anymore (I did a few obvious ones). Its a controversial subject and the article is full of positive and negative things, which should not be exaggerated nor diminished. Well, you can see for yourself. The content of the article was already scrutinized multiple times. The amount of talk pages to the article speak for themselves. Some people are full of hatred and bias towards the subject so a good article that represents the reality and not myths is a good thing for everybody. the article to search engine optimization was already improved to the status of featured article. I helped with that article too. We try to improve on the overall content to the broad subject of internet marketing, which is increasing in significance every year. We try to improve the content to the subject in quantity and quality at the same time and hope to be able get more articles up to the status of featured article over time. Along the way will be have half the industry that is talked about against us and half of Misplaced Pages. This seems to be the point when we know that the article is properly written and has a neutral point of view. :) Thanks for your contributions and sorry for this mess. --roy<sac> .oOo. 04:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The article looks fairly good already IMO, but I'll take a closer look when I get time. (I'm no expert, but I understand the essentials.) Thanks for the suggestion. — xDanielx /_C 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

restored tags

{{notability}} {{advert}}

They where unexplainably removed after Calton put them. The article doesn't establish secondary sources notability as per WP:CORP, ad it read like an advert, probably due to the OR nature. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

removed unsourced OR

"Target audience" section is not verified according to secondary sources. It is original research or WP:SYNTH from primary sources. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Two assertions are made using only self-published primary sources, with no verifiability by secondary sources. These statement must be fixed or removed. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

removal of tags

Please do not remove tags without discussion. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There were discussions already and consensus was reached, except with you. You probably wanted to say "Please do not remove tags without ME agreeing to it.". See my comments further above. --roy<sac> .oOo. 12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing some tags

I'm removing the following tags:

• Conflict of interest. See the COI discussion above for my explanation.
• Notability. The well-attended AfD reached a fairly strong consensus supporting the notability of the article. Furthermore, the tag is meant for articles where notability has not been sufficiently examined; a notice that "a minority of editors considers this non-notable" really adds no value to the article.
• Advertisement. It's normal for an article about a service to describe the features of that service, which is precisely what the article does. "This article says good things about the subject" really doesn't justify the tag. If there's a particular phrase or two that anyone feels is especially promotional, I'm sure it can be fixed by copyediting in roughly the same time that it takes to add a tag.
• Neutrality/factual accuracy. Again, there's no clear WP:NPOV violation which might merit an obtrusive template. "The . . . factual accuracy of this article are disputed" is misleading, since the the concerns voiced regarded the sourcing of certain claims rather than the truth of those claims (keeping in mind that a negative proof does not work as a factual dispute). The sourcing concerns are also redundant, since there's already another tag for that.

Evidently I'm not the first person to disagree with many of the tags which were hastily thrown on. Please do not reinsert these tags before consulting the community for a consensus. Thanks — xDanielx /_C 08:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • COI - see above also.
  • Notability - the majority of the interventions amounted to repeats of "has lots of sources". That is not enough. The fact is the notability is being disputed (DRV hasn't closed, besides the community can err and consensus can change), and furthermore, I continue to raise the issue of the sources being reliable. There are exactly two notable sources, one of which is an obvious press release republication, so their reliability for notability is very tenuous. There is no verifiability and verifiability is what makes something notable. Can't have one without the other.
  • Advertisement - The parent company of eComXpo is not notable itself (a sign of shady notability in itself), so this article is only about the product. However, there are a number of unverified claims (the bulk not only unverified, but un-sourced altogether!!!) about the product that read like an advertisement. For example, the mention that it runs on the ASP platform by inXpo, or attendance figures for "events". If our only source is a primary source, unverified, and published by the same company, thats a textbook definition of an advertisement in wikipedia. I have tagged the specifics with {{fact}}.
  • Neutrality is hard to gauge, but in this case it includes, significantly, no mention of competitors and, if there are notable, wikilinks to them (for example, see Colgate-Palmolive - which mentions Procter & Gamble). However, factual accuracy is easy: there is no verification for claims made, no verification, means suspicion of factual accuracy. Period. Fix those citation tags, with verified sources, not unverified claims from press releases or related corporate websites, and perhaps the article might gain quality.

I tagged these because these are the major issues. There is also WP:SYNTH problems, for example the use of the MSNBC article's general focus on the industry to make specific claims about the product. But these are minor which can be resolved by editing.

Now, I resent your claim that they are hastily put in: they have been explained at length. You can disagree, and we can debate, but until the specific issues remain, I have no reason to remove the tags, and they are placed with much forethought to address specific issues of content. The way to remove the tags is to resolve these issue, not to remove the tags. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the article to the point I could remove some of the tags in good conscience. The COI tag remains, as is the notability and unverified. Thanks! --Cerejota 05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

xDanielx's Take a Step Back Proposal

Template:RFCecon In five and a half days, the article was cut from this to this. I don't mean to get into ad hominems, but for context it should be noted that the removal of content was almost exclusively done by Cerejota in the past 5-6 days. The edits in this time have essentially consisted of content removal and minor revert wars. Some sections of the article were deleted without warning (though with brief justifications). Some bits of information which were given tags, but they enjoyed grace periods of just a small number of days, very short for such a low-traffic article. I have not been able to keep up with Cerejota's aggressive pruning, and not many others have been around. In an effort to remedy the (what I consider) damage, I propose the following procedure:

• Restore to this version.
• Replace the old templates with the four current ones (by default; subject to change as agreed).
• Reinsert a reasonable quantity of tags and similar tags, without tagging trivial claims or otherwise being excessively rigorous. Leave in place for reasonable grace period, keeping in mind that this is a low-traffic article and more tags means that editors have less time to find references.
• In the immediate future, challenge references on the talk page, except for cases of WP:SNOW. (Essentially, don't be excessively bold with controversially removing references.)

The purpose of this proposal is essentially consensus seeking / dispute resolution. There has been some borderline edit warring in these last 5-6 days, and I'm hoping to put an end to it -- hence the reason I'm not simply restoring what I think is appropriate. — xDanielx /_C 10:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I explained the edit, and I disagree in has been on a period of 5-6 days. It was last night that I did substantial edits. Your misrepresentation is clear. It should be noted that indeed this is ad-hominem: instead of engaging in serious debate, you are pronouncing the matter un-resolvable. For example, my last edit was in response to your concerns as to tagging: I reworded the article and removed unreliably sourced and un-sourced material to allow the removal of the tags. I also asked for advise on this topic at WP:CORP. Try addressing my specific concerns, instead of launching what amounts to a personal attack. Thanks! --Cerejota 13:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, removal of most of the material was done per WP:SNOW, it was material that was sourced from press releases, or unsourced. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I made every reasonable attempt to assume good faith and avoid ad hominems. It wasn't easy to keep my summary neutral in tone, given the (in my opinion) radically aggressive nature of your edits, but I think I did a pretty good job. I didn't try to defend every bit of the removed content that I think is appropriate, because as I said I cannot keep up with your aggressive pruning/reverting. I think that would be largely unnecessary, because anyone who compares the current article with a recent old version can plainly see the aggressive pruning without having to look closely at all. A couple of your edits were completely appropriate, and some were debatable, with in all fairness saying that the majority of them qualify as WP:SNOW edits is ludicrous. I'm convinced by your behavior that the only way to resolve this without false compromise is to bring in (randomly selected) third parties who are likely to support a fairly neutral treatment of this article. You have for the most part remained civil, but you seem to have objectionable motivations, whatever they might be. — xDanielx /_C 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I will always agree to mediation if it is proposed in any article I am actively editing, so WP:DR is always cool with me. However, I do not have any objectionable motivation, except that I am a keen defender of sourcing and notability, and of WP:CORP in particular. I do not think wikipedia should become a spam forum for emerging or niche industries seeking wider appeal. I do think that as they emerge and become notable, they should be included. Please do assume good faith. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

By "motivation," I didn't mean to suggest anything illicit -- my apologies if it came out negatively. I just think that the aggressiveness with which you removed contents makes your editing behavior fairly radical - not necessarily malicious or wrong, but extreme. Of course I have views of my own, so it would be improper for me to push them heavily (and also unproductive, as revert wars would likely continue); hence my request for third-party mediation. I didn't expect you to agree with my proposal, and I would have written it very differently if I wasn't making an effort to construct something neutral, but my intention was to devise a reasonable plan that the community as a whole could agree to. — xDanielx /_C 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a thick skin, but ad hominems have been thrown rather injudiciously in total failure of WP:AGF. For example, you admit that you thought I wouldn't agree to mediation. What would give you that impression? I all my editing and talk page I have explained why I have X or Y position, which means my editing is good faith. WP:DR is what good faith editors do when they deeply disagree. What is so special about that? Thanks!--Cerejota 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say (mean) that I didn't expect you to agree to mediation; when I said "I didn't expect you to agree with my proposal" I was referring to my proposal to (in a nutshell) restore deleted content and then discuss the details of what should be included more carefully. I didn't expect you to agree to my suggestion since it involved undoing mostly your edits (at least temporarily) -- I would have made the same assumption with any editor who had strong opinions in favor of the edits s/he was making. It would be dishonest for me to deny any suspicion that, as your were editing this article, your views may have been amplified by something point-related (based on the timing and aggressiveness of your recent edits) -- but I acknowledge that that is nothing more than a suspicion and may be wrong entirely. I'm glad we've been able to keep the discussion fairly civil. — xDanielx /_C 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

More appropiate tag

{{company-importance}} is more appropriate than {{notability}} in this case.

I have been searching and I still cannot find secondary source verification of notability, nor any of the sources provide this. Thanks!--Cerejota 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source you preference? Since the regional and nationwide publications that are (and/or were) in the article are not to your pleasing. Your standards are obviously above of those 10 or more editors and administrators who considered the information that were all referenced and/or validated in the case of primary sources to be sufficient to establish notability over and over again. I have not checked, which references were removed after the notability was established in the AfD debate and if the context is still making sense. I noticed that content that was referenced is now missing in the article. For example did you add a "citation needed" template to the now unreferenced fact that the platform used for the conference is the virtual conferencing ASP solution by a company with the name inXpo. The reference was pointing to the provider who stated that they do in fact provide a solution like the one described in the article and that eComXpo is one of their clients who's conference they host on their servers (hence the name ASP solution, where ASP stands not for Active Server Pages but Application service provider). The website has some contact information where you can write or call them or even stop by their physical company location to verify that they are indeed providing this solution to eComXpo. There are even more things you can do to verify that their claims are real and that they not created fake offices, contact information, telephone, people, bios etc., in an malicious attempt to game Misplaced Pages. After your edits, which I actually consider vandalism and also reported as such does the article indeed lack content and seems to make the impression that it does not meet the notability criteria of Misplaced Pages. That can be fixed fairly easily, but I refrain from this and leave it up to a neutral party to make up their own mind and take the actions they deem to be appropriate in this case. I also discourage you very strongly from continuing with edits of this article until mediators will join us to resolve this dispute. Simply ignoring this and continue would hardly be considered a sign of willingness to respect a neutral opinion and to come to a consensus. I will also revert any edit from this point forward until the problem was decided upon. Those edits are considered vandalism and a sign of disrespect, not only disrespect of me, but the Misplaced Pages community as a whole (who established means for how to resolve this in a fair and civilized manner). --roy<sac> .oOo. 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI. The Deletion Review was acknowledging the result of the AfD discussion. The endorsement of that decision came from a number of editors again, including editors who where not involved in the dispute until the deletion review. I did not make a vote btw. --roy<sac> .oOo. 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To Re-Add to the Article / Updates

Since I am allegedly COI and the article also should remain unedited until a decision was made, if the acts of user Cerejota were in conflict with the AfD and Deletion Review decisions and considered vandalism or not, here some obvious information user Cerejota would like to have referenced or where removed by him for unknown reason, but should be included in the article, because they are relevant to the subject and also reinforce notability (some of them).

Here are my recommendations for after the current conflict was resolved, but it is also part of that resolution process and part of my argumentations against the disruptive and uncooperative actions performed by user Cerejota who ignored all comments, sugesstions and decisions made in this case so far. Consider this part of the process that should have happened after the AfD debate (IMO).

1. 1st "Citation needed" template for "eComXpo is an educationally focused, online virtual trade show designed specifically for search, affiliate and interactive marketers". Citation Source and Reference: http://ecomxpo.com/faq.htm. Note: This is a statement that says what the company DOES and who they are consider to be their target audience. Any other source than the company itself would be "hearsay". I don't know what the purpose of the need for a "citation" of a companies mission and business goals are other than adverting the companies website, but ...
2. 2nd "Citation needed" template for "eComXpo uses the virtual trade show ASP solution created by inXpo." http://www.inxpo.com/NewWebsite/subpage_associations.htm. inXpo state publicly that eComXpo is a client of theirs. They also do so on their homepage. Information about their technology can also be found on their website. inXpo was referenced prior the edit by user Cerejota who removed it. Why he removed the reference and then placed a "citation needed" template is unknown to me.
3. For every business article in Misplaced Pages, which is more than a mere stub, are information provided about the date and location of company creation, the location of the headquarter and the name and title of key people of the company. Those information are also used to categorize companies. User Cerejota removed all those information from the article, but left some of the categorizations in place. I assume that he only forgot to remove them as well. The removal of the company information also caused the categorization to become ambiguous and might imply something that is not correct.
4. The company eComXpo, LLC was founded on 07/14/2004 as a Limited Liability Company in the State of Delaware (See Public Record for eComXpo, LLC at the Division of Corporations at the Department of State of Delaware). The corporate headquarter is located in Bannockburn, IL and Illinois is also the state, where the company is doing business in (See Certification of Good Standing - State of Illinois Public Records, Search for File #: 01551655 or Name: ECOMXPO, LLC). The first conference was however in 2005, which also caused the categorization of the article to be under "established in 2005". Since it is an article about an event, one-time or reoccurring, date information are relevant. The information when the first installment occurred is a vital information that belongs into the article. The Template for Conventions also has space for this information and should be provided and not deleted. See "List of events" and "Years in existence".
5. All this are obvious information and referencing them in such detail as I did is usually not necessary. It is even considered "clutter" or "noise" by some editors, because it bloats the size of the article and clutters the list of references with trivial information that may turn Misplaced Pages into a directory rather than remaining focused and encyclopedic.
6. The size of a conference (in terms of attendees and also exhibitors for business conventions) is also a critical and important information. Those figures don't have to be reported by the event organizer, but it is common practice to make those numbers known. It is in the interest of the organizer to publish those information. The figures originate always from the event organizer himself, because it is rare that those data are tracked by an outside party or under the supervision of a notary or similar who is entitled to certify the accuracy of those numbers. The trade show template has a space for this information as well (Attendance), but it was also removed by user Cerejota. The last installment of the event had 8,297 Attendees (March 2007) . The figures and dates for previous installments and the reference for them (to show that they were not made up by the editor, but also that those figures where tracked by an outside entity) where also removed by user Cerejota. Those are all relevant information for a convention again. I am part of the Wikiproject Business and Economics and we don't have a project for Conventions yet, like other projects do. I think it makes sense to suggest the creation of such a project and to put forth some guidelines and recommendations for the editors who are obviously not familiar with the subject, that they will be able to learn about what information an article should include in what not.
7. The company eComXpo, LLC does not warrant its own article yet (IMO), so the information about the company behind the convention should become part of the article too. Those information are not necessarily relevant to the convention itself and might be separated from it. This can be accomplished by creating a separate paragraph for the company. It might be advisable to add the "Infobox_Company" template in addition to the "Infobox Convention" template. Next to the name, type, date founded and location of the company should be mentioned John Grosshandler, Event Director - eComXpo for the item "key people". This information was also in the original article and deleted by user Cerejota who is not part of the responsible Wikiproject and did not know better.
8. One fact that is not only interesting, but also adds to the notability of the convention is the fact that it happens virtual and not at a physical venue location. This is a new experience for many people and not a comon thing. The article used to describe who the real world event was ported into the virtual space of the internet. It also described who businesses perceived it in comparison to a real world event. A convention is a social event to a large degree and perception is a very important part of the experience. The (now deleted) information in the article were not original content, but referred to elsewhere published content. It also shows that eComXpo is a pioneer in this area. Most conventions still happen in the real world. If it will become a common experience in the future remains to be seen, but in any case does it add to the notability of the article, because it makes eComXpo either a pioneer or short lived novelty, which time will tell. Which case it might be should be added to the article in the future when enough references from reliable sources exist to confirm one or the other. --roy<sac> .oOo. 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'd prefer to wait and see if my proposal gets a general thumbs up first, but then I'd be happy to work this into the article if your non-COI status isn't confirmed already. — xDanielx /_C 00:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Our friend picked a good time. It's weekend. I just posted at the COI Noticeboard, which I found and believe to be the best place for my request. I posted the stuff here at the talk page, for the reasons mentioned. Where did you make a proposal, except on this talk page? The step back approach is exactly what I also recommended. The article should be reverted back to its pre-deletion review status and then adjusted. I stated my opinion on the talk page to discuss them without ignoring everybody and do whatever I want to do. I also requested the review of Cerejota's behavior, which was IMO not only violating the rules of the Misplaced Pages community, but also the rules of behavior in the real world. If he would have done the equivalent of what he did here in a public place in the real world, I would have called the cops and contacted a lawyer as well. The cops for disturbance of the peace (among others) and the lawyer because of libel (or in the real world scenario, slander) with the purpose of preventing me on acting against his disruptive actions. --roy<sac> .oOo. 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the citation needed tag from the first two lines. I think info in the template can also be restored as it is sourced now.

I am also re-writing to establish notability, I find your argument persuasive in the light of the AfD and DRV: if the community finds it notable, the article must state why (which is why the current tag is better than {{notability}}).

However conference attendance figures that only come from unverifed sources such as press releases? Not kosher. Not kosher at all. This has been a key point: I disputed notability and it seems the community has a much lower threshold than I; however verifiability is a separate issue. How do we know the company is not lying about attendance figures and other such information with marketing value? Thanks!--Cerejota 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the case with figures for virtually every event, but guess what, those figures are trusted to some extend in most cases. If there is a doubt, people will check the data indirectly. You can't find out the exact figure, but you can find out by circumstantial evidence if the figures are significantly off. FYI, box office figures also rely on the honest reporting of theatres and/or the studios (and whoever else has to get the information, because he gets a piece of the revenue generated from the admissions). If this destroys a belief you had before this, sorry, but that are the cold facts of reality. If you would have done proper diligence and research, you would have realized this yourself. Anyway, I noticed a while ago that this is not about right or wrong at all, but exclusively about you pushing your own agenda and opinion, which is obviously flawed and based on bias and prejudges. See the mounting evidence here and the other discussions that confirm this, with references. --roy<sac> .oOo. 01:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

STOP editing the article! I will revert them as I said before.--roy<sac> .oOo. 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to the edit summary of the edits I just reverted. You ask the question why something is relevant, after you removed the content that would have explained it and put it into context. Stop playing games. Sorry that over a dozen other editors and admins did not agree with you on the AfD and the deletion review. I can see that you try to dismantel the article piece by piece to then be able to get it deleted and your personal (obviously biased) opinion pushed through by force against the consensus of the community. --roy<sac> .oOo. 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

RV Vandalism - See Talk Page why this is considered vandalism

Dear User:Cumbrowski:

Please read this for the actual meaning of "vandalism" (note especially the very first sentence), and try not to be so sloppy in your use of misleading and needlessly inflammatory language. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 01:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comments at the COI noticeboard here. --roy<sac> .oOo. 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages."

Quote: "...addition, removal, or change of content made..." broken down:

1. addition - I wish he had
2. removal - plenty
3. change - done that too, to justify 2.

Quote: "... deliberate attempt ...", Comment: No doubt about that. His will to do it is hardly possible to overlook

Quote: ".... compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages ..." Comment:

1. article level - dismantling content to get good content removed is not in the interest of Misplaced Pages
2. editor level - defame somebody who does not agree to get him out of the way is not a healthy method of maintaining and growing a community
3. community level - ignoring community decisions and processes that were established to solve this kind of disputes will render those mechanisms useless, if ignorance of them is tolerated or even rewarded. Without those mechanisms would Misplaced Pages be a uncontrolled places where every single person can do what he likes.

Yes, I consider the acts of the user I referred to as vandalism in the fullest meaning of it. I also consider this form of vandalism a greater threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages as for example an uncoordinated blanking of an article by an anonymous person. --roy<sac> .oOo. 02:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)