User talk:Candy Cerveau

From Second Life Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Ozimals‎

I'm curious on what grounds you decided it was the right thing to blank the article Ozimals‎. If you have a problem with an article please lets discuss it so we can fix the article. I can't imagine the entire article was a total loss, not with so many cites. Blanking articles is disruptive and highly frowned upon, it is not something that a single user can usually decide. But you are new to the wiki and don't know how it operates. The automatic response to an edit that is detrimental to another user's article is to revert the edit, especially if no justification was given for the edit in the first place. We need to know why. I do not think the article was a total loss and some if not all of it should be reinstated. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 21:36, 6 January 2013 (PST)

I could not find another example of an entry on this wiki that dealt specifically with the history of a company operating in Second Life, or even any entries on SL specific businesses at all. Thus, I believe this article is out of place and inappropriate. I would prefer it be removed completely. If you insist on keeping this singular article in the wiki with no precedent for anything remotely similar, then as the owner of the company in question I will edit it to contain the minimum information I think is relevant - and I believe there is no one more qualified to edit it than the founder and operator of the company.

Whoever put this article into place is not affiliated with the company, was not given permission to create this article on behalf of the company, and we were not contacted about its creation. Given the tone, I suspect it is someone related to the lawsuit or with some imaginary pixel ax to grind because of the way the information was presented and slanted. Thus they are using this site against it's true purpose - to distribute information to assist residents of Second Life. The vast majority of the information presented is biased and/or totally incorrect. Thanks for the input. Candy Cerveau 18:35, 8 January 2013 (PST)

I agree with you, the bias of the article was unacceptable. Bias has been a problem with the Breedable Guide article as well, I would be surprised if the bias in favor of any particular brand was created by that brands detractors. If anyone has an interest in adding bias into the articles it is those who's business is advanced by what is written. Finding a motivated unbiased expert to write such an article is difficult.
I will grant that I don't know of a comparable precedent, especially with the article's prior state. The article in it's current state is more in keeping with article quality I would expect. Keep up the good work and welcome to the wiki. -- Strife (talk|contribs) 17:22, 9 January 2013 (PST)