User talk:MyWiseData

Notability of Bwitty

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bwitty, by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bwitty seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bwitty, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I've nominated an article you created, bWitty, for speedy deletion because it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notablilty requirements at WP:CORP and, as you are no doubt aware, has already been deleted once for the same reason. Please remember that comments from sockpuppets and random IP addresses do not carry much weight at all in AFD discussions. TreveX^talk 00:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• This has now been deleted. Please do not test everyone's patience by creating this article for the third time. TreveX^talk 10:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of bWitty

The article bWitty was re-creation of an article deleted as per the deletion process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BWitty. Please see WP:CSD. utcursch | talk 11:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

When I created it I was aware that it was previously deleted, I didn't create the first. And I still don't see what's wrong with my page, except that it was previously deleted. MyWiseData 11:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read our five pillars, in particular noting the sections on verifiability and notability. --Pak21 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

---I read them, if Stickies is OK, this page is also OK. MyWiseData 11:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And now please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Pak21 11:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD#G4. The concern expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BWitty was lack of notability (see WP:CORP). This concern was not addressed in the re-created article. The article didn't contain any information about how the company is notable, and content was similar to the previously deleted article. If you feel that Stickies is non-notable, please feel free to nominate it for deletion. utcursch | talk 12:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Those concerns were fixed in my version of the article. MyWiseData 12:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

In order for a website or company to claim notability, third parties have to have written something substantive about it (see WP:CORP). The references you gave in your article (listings in web directories) were simply not substantive enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. This appears to be backed up by Alexa: I'm afraid not enough people are using BWitty Notes. In contrast, Stickies has been present on Macs since System 7.5, is probably used by hundreds of thousands of people every day and plenty of reputable third parties have written about it. This is why Stickies is notable and BWitty Notes/BWitty are not.

My previous message was curt it was because I assumed you were the creator of the original copy of the BWitty article and (what is called in Wikipedia parlance) a vanity entry for Amit Avner (see WP:COI). If this is not the case, please accept my apologies. TreveX^talk 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I now understand why bWitty is not notable according to Wikipedia. I still think that Ptimemo is also not notable on the same substance (Google it, and see that all you get is software listings, just as bWitty).

I did provide an article (referenced) about bWitty from two Israeli newspapers. Why is it not enough? MyWiseData 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete bWitty. Someone else did. The comments above expalin why bWitty isn't notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the article for the reasons stated above. The references from the newspaper were passing mentions of the software, not an article covering the technology or its creator that would assert notability. As for the other software with articles, I am under no obligation to get rid of those articles just because yours was deleted. Every case is separate. Keegan^talk 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Keegan, the article from YNET was covering the program. Nothing else. Just about the program and it's creator. Same about the article from Ma'ariv. MyWiseData 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the work that you are putting into keeping this article, it is worth noting that whether the article is under the name Bwitty, bWitty, BWitty or however many names it might be made as the community has agreed that the subject is not encyclopedic and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Like everyone said above me, it just won't work. Thanks for your time, though, and please continue editing! Keegan^talk 17:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I will put time an effort into articles I write. Because I give my time to write it, and I feel dump when it gets deleted. You just told me to make it notable I need to give an article or something about it, well - I gave you two articles about bWitty from the biggest newspaper in Israel and the second-runner newspaper. What's more notable than that? You asked me to give it notability. I just did. I don't understand why it's useless. MyWiseData 18:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As an aside and in relation to the arguments you have made above, PtiMemo is probably not notable either. If you nominated it for deletion (WP:AFD) I would vote to delete. TreveX^talk 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing against PtiMemo. My argument is that Bwitty was talked about in Israel, and I referenced two online versions of the biggest newspapers in Israel that wrote about it, not mentioned it in a related article, but wrote on bwitty. There are more articles in print (I couldn't find their online version). Therefor, I think bwitty is notable according to the rules of Wikipedia.

According to WP:CORP, bwitty has been the subject of secondary sources. And those sources are the biggest newspapers in Israel, you can't get more reliable, and independent of the subject. It's not Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject. I saw a few more in-print articles, and I'm quite sure I saw something on the TV at the time. But, I can only reference to what I have online. MyWiseData 15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what personal connection you might have with bWitty? TreveX^talk 15:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You may ask, I don't have. MyWiseData ^(talk) 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the fact you were informed of the original AFD nomination as a courtesy, it is a pity you could not reciprocate when you brought the issue to deletion review. TreveX^talk 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was away, and I saw everything after it has been was deleted. What do you have against me? MyWiseData ^(talk) 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(Deleted my old comment, I misunderstood you and wrote something irrelvant), If noted the relevant administrator about the deletion review, I saw no point in brining it here. MyWiseData ^(talk) 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You "saw no point" in notifying the other editors in a dispute that you had taken the article in question to an official review process? TreveX^talk 10:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BWittyScreenshot.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:BWittyScreenshot.gif. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bwitty

I have posted the last version of Bwitty to /Bwitty so that you can make revisions to it and attempt to repost it in the article space when it is in a satisfactory version. Note that this is in no way a promise that any future versions of the article will survive our deletion process, nor is it an endorsement of the article. I'm just happy to put it in your userspace so you can take a crack at it if you want to. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You can access it at the link above - /Bwitty. When you have a good version of it, just go to Bwitty and create it as a new article. Phil Sandifer 12:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what Phil said above (By the way I am a quite different person from Phil. Your msg on my talk page seems to imply that you have confused us, or maybe you just sent me a copy of a msg addressed to him). The full link to the draft copy is User talk:MyWiseData/Bwitty. When you are done with the article, you can go to the move tab on the copy and move it to Bwitty or ask me or any experienced editor for help. you can also just copy it, as Phil suggests above, but that will lose any revision history on the draft. if you are the only person who works on it, that doesn't much matter. If anyone else works on it while it is in the draft state, then the move is the better choice.

You ask how the article can be made better. Thew first and most important way is to find independent, Reliable sources that discuss bTwitty. "Independent" means not press releases or bTwitty's own sites, nor sites created by any of the bTwitty team. "Reliable" means, among other things, not blogs or fan sites. Published magazine articles or mentions in published books would be good, or online versions of either. If you can't find good sources, nothing else will matter. if you have found sources, and want help in writing an article based on them, feel free to drop me a note. DES ^(talk) 15:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you're a different person from Phil Sandifer, and the messages I posted was directed to you. I just said that he userfy the article. And I asked for your help :-)

In any case, what about the YNET article I have now? and the maariv (the second is a short one) mention of the website. They are the two biggest newspapers in Israel and the the biggest online news sources in Israel. Are they good enough? MyWiseData ^(talk) 18:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps i misread your note. in any case, the YNET article, being in hebrew, is of very limited use to most users of the english-language wikipedia. Specifically i can not evaluate it in any way. Is a translation available? I don't see a link to maariv in the draft at this moment, perhaps I missed it. if it is also in hebrew, the same commetns would apply. DES ^(talk) 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind translating the YNET article, it's not that long. The Maariv one (I can't find it too from some reason, I will look for it). If I avoid all press releases and bwitty created data, I have this bit from Adrienne Wilkinson's official website story, it mentions Amit Avner from bWitty (in relation of her website). Will my translation for YNET be good enough? Or am I not a good source? MyWiseData ^(talk) 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you provide a tranalation and link to the original, anyone who cares to and can read hebrew can check you. That should be good enough i would think. Note that once you have established notability through independant sources, it is then ok to cite non-independant sources such as the bTwitty site, for additional details. It is just that the notability/significance must be established by outside sources, because too many insiders tend to puff their own work, it is only natural. Your second link mentions Amit Avner but not the bTwitty product, even indiratly, so it doesn't really help. I might be useful in an articel about Avner, but not in one about bTwitty. DES ^(talk) 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I'm quite busy with my work this week. I will provide translate the article, and create a new Wikipedia article, and then I will contact you for your help about what I have created. OK? MyWiseData ^(talk) 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. DES ^(talk) 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Despite your denials of any association with this website, I am convinced that you are in fact Amit Avner, webmaster of bWitty and with a clear conflict of interest.

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

TreveX^talk 17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence backing this claim? Because otherwise, this is rather needlessly threatening of you. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Phil Sandifer. Accusations of COI, in the face of explicit denials, ought to be backed by some evidence, or else they rather violate WP:AGF and possibly WP:NPA. DES ^(talk) 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if this seems needlessly threatening. I do think there is a good case which is certainly worth examining. I will outline this on WP:COIN shortly when I have time. TreveX^talk 13:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now outlined my case at WP:COIN. TreveX^talk 17:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where is the place I should defend myself or reply to this coin thing, where do I do that? Did you think about the fact, that I wrote on bWitty because I know it from similar interests? 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)