User talk:DSeeB

Please see the section below, Request for article, for discussion of article "EidosMedia".DSeeB (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DSeeB! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

I am an external consultant working for the IT company EidosMedia. The company have noted the absence of a WP page dedicated to their publishing technology and have asked me to request the creation of such a page.

There are several reasons why EidosMedia and its products might be of interest to WP users:

• Since 1999 the company has been the first and most successful developer of ‘cross-media’ publishing solutions based on XML. These allow news organisations to produce printed newspapers and magazines, Web and digital editions from a common content base.

• The company’s solutions have been adopted by leading news organizations in Europe, the USA and elsewhere. (In France 70% of national newspapers by circulation are produced using EidosMedia solutions).

• The company’s products have contributed (and continue to contribute) to the survival of a healthy news and information sector in several countries by allowing many organizations (especially in the USA) to remain profitable in the face of
  shrinking print revenues and advertising
  .
  
  

For comparison, here are some companies in the same sector which already have WP pages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark,_Inc

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCI_Europe

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atex_(software)
  
  

Below I have listed the basic characteristics of the company, together with a selection of secondary references that chart its activities from the foundation of the company to the present day.

DSeeB (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EidosMedia is a specialist developer of cross-media publishing solutions for organizations in the news, media and financial sectors. It was founded in 1999 and has its headquarters in Milan, Italy and subsidiaries in London, Paris, Frankfurt, New York and Sydney, Australia.

Products

EidosMedia's principal product is the Méthode editorial and publishing platform. Méthode is the world's first XML-based cross-media publishing system, allowing content to be published simultaneously through multiple publication channels, without manual adaptation or 'repurposing'.

Customers

Over the past decade Méthode has been adopted by leading news publishers in Europe, the USA, Africa and Asia-Pacific.

Current users include The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe and The New York Post in the USA, The Financial Times, The Times and the Sun in the UK, Le Figaro and Le Monde group in France, the WAZ media group and the NordWest Zeitung in Germany, The Australian Financial Review and the News Limited group in Australia.

1. Of Content Management and the Evolution of Newspapers.

Seybold Bulletin, June 2002

http://www.zoominfo.com/CachedPage/?archive_id=0&page_id=735611376&page_url=//www.eidosmedia.com/News_and_Reviews/reviews/review_Seybold_Bulletin_26-06-02.htm&page_last_updated=2005-01-05T22:56:01&firstName=Luke&lastName=Cavanagh

2. EidosMedia building momentum in market.

News & Tech, Nov 2001

http://www.newsandtecharchives.com/issues/2001/11-01/ifra/11-01_eidos.htm

3. XML Offers New Flexibility To Publishers.

Editor & Publisher, March, 2002

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/Article/XML-Offers-New-Flexibility-To-Publishers

4. 'Financial Times' Selects Italy's EidosMedia.

Editor & Publisher, May, 2002

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/PrintArticle/-Financial-Times-Selects-Italy-s-EidosMedia

5. Edipresse chooses EidosMedia.

IFRA Magazine,February 2004

http://www.wan-ifra.org/magazine-articles/2004/02/01/shaping-the-future-edipresse-chooses-eidosmedia-a-consequential-change-

6. 'Washington Post' Selects EidosMedia for Merged Newsroom.

Editor & Publisher, June, 2009

http://editorandpublisher.com/PrintArticle/-Washington-Post-Selects-EidosMedia-for-Merged-Newsroom

7. News commits to $60 million editorial upgrade in Australia.

Gxpress, May 2012

http://www.gxpress.net/news-commits-to-60-million-editorial-upgrade-in-australia-cms-2030

I have received no reply from the reviewer to my last two posts to their talk page.

I am therefore re-submitting the article.

EidosMedia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation

if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EidosMedia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tablets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the EidosMedia page has been created, I would caution you against editing it further. As a contractor for the company, you have a conflict of interest. If you see areas in need of improvement, please recommend them on the article's talk page and another editor, without such conflict, will make them.--RadioFan (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC) I've made a couple of corrections to the syntax. This article is part of a larger context involving the evolution of news-publishing systems over the last two decades. There is currently no coverage in WP of this subject. As you correctly observe, I am not the right person to write such an article, but I could provide information and sources to anyone who may be interested in developing the subject. DSeeB (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link to Le Monde newspaper . EidosMedia products are currently only used for other products of the Le Monde group.

Removed reference to the BBC's Electronic News Production System. Comparison is extremely misleading - but this is not clear from the ENPS article. DSeeB (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to add two sections to this entry. These place the company's activities in the context of the crisis affecting newspaper publishers in developed markets over the last decade and the options available to ensure the survival and sustainability of news publishing operations. DSeeB (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at EidosMedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. De728631 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckrkr (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any affiliation with EidosMethode? If so, could you please disclose them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckrkr (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been subject to repeated attacks by an unregistered user who has deleted most of the content and replaced it with poorly-supported material. I have now requested that it receive partial page protection. DSeeB (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion, as you did at EidosMedia. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum: I have blocked your account indefinitely since your sole purpose here is to promote EidosMedia. Wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for such activity. You have been editing with a strong and obvious conflict of interest, and have refused to discuss your edits, instead just repeatedly edit warring. You may be unblocked in the future if you agree to propose edits only on the article talk page, and to refrain from any further edit warring related to your COI. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no secret of my COI - I declared it when I first requested the creation of the article on June 13th 2013 (see above on this page). I intend to appeal this block but in the meantime the page has been reverted to the vandalized version which was created by anonymous user 209.6.206.4 on September 27th (who then registered as Muckrkr on Sept. 28th.)

A quick look at this version shows that it aims to damage the company which is the subject of the article and has been written with malicious intent. While all documented contributions are legitimate, I cannot see how the completeness and accuracy of Wikipedia is served by allowing this version of the article to stand. DSeeB (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DSeeB: To be clear, I am acting in an administrative capacity and take no position on the condition of the article. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a policy that all articles must meet, and I would love for you to be able help improve the article in a non-biased and non-disruptive fashion. That means you absolutely cannot attempt to whitewash legitimate and properly sourced criticism of the company, you cannot edit war, and you must stop characterizing other people's edits as vandalism simply because you don't agree with them. I don't think you be unblocked until you demonstrate understanding of these issues and agree to stop the poor behavior. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would have been happy for the other user to include their point of view inthe article. Instead they deleted the whole content and replaced it with a few poorly supported negative points. How does that constitute 'improving' the article. Have you read the two versions? DSeeB (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Spike Wilbury.

I notice that the EidosPedia article is still online in its malicious version (posted by a user who registered five days ago.) I can do nothing about this, but surely it is your duty as an administrator to prevent the malicious use of Wikipedia? DSeeB (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an administrative function to make judgments about content disputes. If and when you are unblocked, you may state your objections to the article content on the article talk page, assuming you refrain from personal attacks and avoid maligning others' edits as vandalism or "malicious use" when you don't agree with them. Thus far, I don't see any changes in your behavior, so I'm not optimistic about an unblock. I won't be replying to any further rhetoric about the article; however, I or another administrator will reply to a well-reasoned unblock request. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the email you sent me, I am not going to protect the article in the version that you prefer. The best thing is for you to follow the advice you have already been given. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 21:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for your attention. DSeeB (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DSeeB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Creation of the EidosMedia page On June 13th last year I submitted a request for an article to be created about the the software company EidosMedia. I declared my conflict of interest at this time (I worked as an external consultant for the company) and provided evidence for the noteworthiness of the company and its activities. On July 15th I submitted a draft for the article that was accepted and published on July 20th.

The edit war

Last week on September 27th , an anonymous user (209.6.206.4) deleted most of the content of the page , replacing it with damaging statements about the company. Judging this to be vandalism, I restored the article.

The following day the anonymous user (who in the meantime had registered with the name Muckrkr) undid my edit. An ‘edit war’ ensued and at 19.53 I requested that the page be protected. Shortly afterwards the page was partially protected by administrator CambridgeBayWeather.

The page has been protected but now displays the version created by Muckrkr.

Moving forward

In its current version the article is a very long way from presenting a balanced, neutral picture of its subject and I do not believe that the interests of Wikipedia users are served by this.

I realize now that engaging in an edit war was not the correct way to deal with the situation.

If this block is lifted I will not engage in such editing again - but I will use the article’s talk page to suggest ways in which the article may be restored to a balanced source of information for WP users.

Decline reason:

Given that your description of the current version of the page as 'vandalism', I don't think you should be editing. PhilKnight (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DSeeB (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DSeeB. Can you tell me if you know the Wikipedia editor

No, I'm afraid I don't know Jeff Hawke. I was surprised by his intervention, but I agree with most of what he says. DSeeB (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. As you may have noticed, the EidosMedia page has been changed again.

Perhaps it's time for you to start asking user Muckrkr what exactly is his/her interest in posting these negative points. I declared my interest before I started editing two years ago and I think in fairness we should all be open about our relationship with the company and/or its competitors. DSeeB (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon.

At the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard user Muckrkr says: “ I do not have any relationship with either EidosMedia or any of its competitors, except as a user.” (my emphasis).

This isn't very clear, but if it's true, it means he’s using an EidosMedia product within a large organization (these systems are not bought by individuals).

If he’s not happy with the performance of the system, then surely he should take it up with his employers?

I don’t think a Wikipedia article is the right place for an employee to take issue with their company’s choice of software. DSeeB (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]