Talk:EComXpo/Archive 1

message: 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> Talk! .oOo. 12:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exact figures needed

message: 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> Talk! .oOo. 04:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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> Talk! .oOo. 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy deletion - hangon  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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> Talk! .oOo. 14:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington Post

message: 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)
thread_title:  restored tags 

message: "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)
thread_title:  removed unsourced OR 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed 

message: Please do not remove tags without discussion. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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> Talk! .oOo. 12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of tags 

message: 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 T/C 10:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 T/C 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 T/C 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 T/C 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to RfC.  The deletions should be restored.  However, the article may not meet the standards for notability.  I am not sure.  However, I do not believe the article should be trimmed. I personally found the information trimmed out to be interesting and helpful in understanding the subject. --Blue Tie 01:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  xDanielx's Take a Step Back Proposal 

message: is more appropriate than  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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia community as a whole (who established means for how to resolve this in a fair and civilized manner). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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> Talk! .oOo. 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I removed the tag, which you inexplicably restored, while also falsely accusing me of vandalism. Thanks!--Cerejota 05:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More appropiate tag 

message: I think we should go to mediation, I am deeply worried about his position, in particular his accusation of vandalism, which is highly uncivil. Due to this type of ad hominem failures to assume good faith, I am requesting formal mediation, rather than informal mediation, because Roy has just, in my opinion, poisoned the well by not addressing the content issues raised directly. Thanks!--Cerejota 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for start reading what other editors suggested for the past few days. You are obviously done with your edits. It does not surprises me that you are very familiar with the technicalities of the Wikipedia mediation process. I wasn't, because it was never necessary during my time at Wikipedia, regardless how heated the debates were. I will update the requested items that require mediation and take it from there. To hear the words about me being "highly uncivil" very cynical. I stated very early on, when you started to neglect any discussions and decisions made by the community that were not in your favor, that I you made it impossible to assume good faith. What you did was not the result of a discussion and no consensus was reached. You used brute force to get what you wanted. You can continue to throw Wikipedia terms and abbreviations at me as long as you want to. Your actions (WHEN you did WHAT and HOW) speak for themselves. Your attempt to ratify them by (ab)using wikipedia guidelines after you ignored a number of them yourself disgusts me. You scorn them by ignoring them first and then using them as a shield after you got what you wanted. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: please refrain from using leading statements like "you say" and similar phrases. Those lead to misunderstandings and escallation of disputes. I did not say that you have violated a policy, because I don't know if there is a policy that covers this. We might be able to find that out, but I hope that this will not become necessary. We won't, if you agree on the offer to take a step back, forget about what happened and start at a point in time before things took a bad turn and escalated. I would prefer that, because it is actually more productive and does not waste precious energy, which could be used to improve Wikipedia content instead. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) AffiliateTip.com is operated by Shawn Collins and quallifies perfectly as WP:RS, since you picked a specific source. Just FYI.  --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 2) I don't understand why my offer would be a blackmail. My offer did not say what the article should include or what it should not. I offered to take a step back to the point in time when the AfD decission was "keep" and before you deleted the majority of content from the article despite the objections and disagreement of multiple other editors without even attempting a discussion to come to a consensus to do it the right way. (This did happen during the deletion review, which is even worse than just doing it under normal circumstances, because you knew that other editors are involved who do not agree with you). After that would we discuss together with other editors the individual sections of the article and come to a consensus regarding what to do with it: Keep it, Delete it or Modify it. This is the recommended approach for editing articles, especially if there are conflicts and different opinions among the editors who edit the article. This should also work, as long as the involved editors assume good faith. You claimed that you do assume good faith. I just took your word for it to demonstrate to you that I am assuming good faith, despite the circumstances. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 3) I was not and are not ignorant of content policies and there is no reason why somebody should believe anything else. Please refraign from attacking me and making one accusation after another. I would not consider you neutral when it comes to the article, but that does not mean that I try to come to a consensus with you as well. Certain information are always coming from a source that is not neutral and can't be 100% verified, but that does not mean that they should be excluded from the article. Using common sense is part of most Wikipedia guidelines that are related to the content of articles. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 4) Quote Cerejota: "You are suggesting that we WP:IAR". You are leading again and putting word in my mouth, which I did not use. I did not even implied what you are saying. If I did, please point me to the sentence where you believe that I suggested this. Thank you.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 5) Please stop WikiLawyering and the misuse of Wikipedia policies and guidelines to game the system.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I ask you again to please point me to the edits where I supposedly said that I am "ignorant of wikipedia policy". I don't understand how you could misinterpret a simple question like that as hostility. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "since unlike Cerejota am I not familar with the process." in this thread. And thats just one. Thanks!--Cerejota 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What has not knowing of a process, you never had to be part of, to do with ignoring Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines? I never needed mediation before and even said that I was seeking help to find out what to do before you started the official mediation process.. the one I was looking for. Okay, what about the other? That can't be it?! Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation? 

message: The request for mediation made on 26 August 2007 05:08(UTC) by User:Cerejota was rejected on September 4, 2007 by User:Daniel because User:xDanielx, who was added by Cerejota to the list of involved editors did not agree on a mediation for unknown reasons. Just FYI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was User:Calton, and he was added because he actively participated here and edited the article. User:xDanielx accepted! Thanks!--Cerejota 23:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right -- as Cerejota said. I was slightly disappointed that Calton didn't communicate with us regarding the RfM, as it seems he was active at the time. — xDanielx T/C 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it wouldn't have been a true mediation without him, after all, except for the COI tag, all other tags and discussions were started by him. I would love to hear why he wouldn't accept. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calton reverted some edits and made a vote for the deletion at the AfD and the DR. That was it (you will see that, if you look at the edit histories). He basically supported you Cerejota, but did not do anything else. Sorry Daniel, my mistake, I appologize for that. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Mediation