Talk:GreenQloud

Advertising

In light of the actual advantages that Iceland has with web hosting, l'd like to know what kind of information or what tone of voice would make this article not "sound like an advertisement".

l am not affiliated with this company nor am l paid in any way. The information is factual. Iceland does, in fact, have specific advantages over other countries in hosting as described in the entry. l created this page based on research conducted on the internet about this company and Iceland's hosting services in general.

The editor exudes cynicism and prejudice over the possibility of businesses addressing social and ecological problems. The editor should, instead, speak on this discussion page and comment that there is only positive information on the page. Sometimes there is only positive information because nothing is actually wrong/ negative about a subject. Just because there are companies out there which exploit green marketing does not mean that all companies addressing ecological problems are not conscientious/ representing themselves in a false manner. Zealous fault-finding is actually a display of bias.

Wikipedia has plenty of spam and viral advertising which are not marked/ reviewed with the vigour that contributors without apparent social clout on the site receive. It is defamation.

Anything that extolls the virtues of green web hosting in general is off-topic here: it goes in an article that talks about green web hosting in general. Leaving it in this article gives the impression that Greenqloud claims that should it go belly up green web hosting will no longer be possible, and thereby comes across as advertizing regardless of the author's intentions. This article should stick to its main topic: a company named Greenqloud. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire section under the title Background should be moved to the article Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, leaving only a mention that GreenQloud was founded under the conditions of the law. Basically, much of the first paragraph belongs there as well. However, the See Also section should remain as is. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 07:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You've inflated "enumerating advantages" into "extolling virtues," Blanchardb. (Advertising isn't the only bias we must guard against.) This company sells an intangible, gemutlichkeit (or is it absolution?), packaged as renewable energy and, since the energy itself is too remote to be delivered directly, delivers it to customers as a "green" web hosting service. Since production of this intangible depends on a particular political and and physical environment, discussion of those factors in the article is entirely appropriate.

The article in no way suggests that the future of green web hosting inextricably depends on the success of Greenqloud. It says specifically that Greenqloud is the first and that there are others, and seems to imply that Greenqloud is among the retailers of green web hosting in Iceland and not one of the 2+ wholesalers that pioneered this industry. Suggesting that the MMI is strategically advantageous to the company is original research without a reference, but company founder Eirikur Hrafnsson does allude to it here, so it seems not to be WP:OR but a weakly documented fact.

There is no policy that precludes the inclusion of topical content that is fully elaborated elsewhere, and it's disingenuous to suggest that there is. Perhaps instead of pruning the article away before felling it you could edit it to improve it. There's a lot of room for improvement here. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I came across this article while on new page patrol. Bearing in mind that fully 25% of newly submitted articles are deleted in a matter of hours while many others are deleted within a week, you have to know that I'm getting a good idea of what usually gets accepted or rejected by the editing community in general. While I see no reason to nominate this article for outright deletion, I must say that, too often, I've seen articles supposedly about companies but are really long-winded opinion pieces about the circumstances that led the company's founder to create the company, and all these articles are saying about the company itself is that "now that we've explained the problem, we're the solution." I can tell you from experience that such articles routinely get a consensus for deletion, or else for the pruning of any statement that does not relate directly to the company itself should that company meet our notability criteria, as seems to be the case here.

This said, I won't be losing any sleep over this article, but whatever I do here, I have a feeling that if I don't do it sooner or later someone else will. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone contributing to this article at this point works for the company, nor is s/he affiliated with the company. I'm sorry Blanchardb is traumatized by spam articles, but each article is independent. Human editors are in place to check the validity of articles because humans are supposedly less mechanical than robots; here, the editor justifies mechanically deleting every article one comes across with a certain set of parameters as upholding convention. I have to disagree that the convention is being jaded/ burnt-out. This very short article about this company is hardly "long winded," more has been written in the talk section by reviewing editors than the actual article. Ellesmelle (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources

1. Please don't cite what you haven't read. Thanks to Google's annoying habit of redirecting links to search results back to itself, it's evident that the editor who cited
   http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/bto/pointofview/pdf/BT_Data_Center.pdf
   copied the link directly from a search result without following it to the document at McKinsey & Company. A diller, a dollar...

I have actually read that particular article, but used the link returned from the search engine because I had technical difficulties with cutting and pasting the actual link from the browser I was using. In lieu of not citing the source, I used the search engine link, which has been corrected. Ellesmelle (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Please don't claim reliable sources support a major edit without citing those same sources (i.e., "moved Greenqloud to GreenQloud: Calitalization as seen in reliable sources I found in Google News."). The company itself writes the name in lower-case letters with bold type delimiting two component words ("greenqloud") or with an initial (but not internal) capital letter ("Greenqloud"). The camelCase "GreenQloud" is some editor's invention. [Both capitalizations are used on the company website, in some cases both on the same page. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)]

Company name

The company consistently presents itself as "greenqloud," its name in all lower-case letters and "qloud" in boldface, but without boldface renders its name variously as "Greenqloud" or "GreenQloud," even on its own website [1] [2] [3]. (No doubt an oversight by those qlowns in marketing.) CEO and founder Eirikur Hrafnsson consistently uses "Greenqloud" when writing for publication [4] [5] but just as consistently uses "GreenQloud" when writing on the company website [6] [7]).

Given that, can anyone provide a cogent reason why this article was moved?

• "Greencloud" [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
• "GreenCloud" [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
• It's all good: [18] [19]

I won't object to the article being moved back if it can be shown that the capitalization of the Q is indeed a mistake on the part of these news reporters. I merely acted according to what I saw. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It was your responsibility to demonstrate that the move was necessary, your responsibility to explain your action and support it with reliable sources, and your responsibility to seek consensus among other editors before proceeding. Instead you made a senseless change and invoked WP:BOLD as a post hoc excuse.

The "reliable sources I found in Google News" is a single Citrix press release, translated into six languages by eight different publications, in which greenqloud is included incidentally as one of their CloudStack customers. (Which curiously enough goes a long way toward establishing the notability of this company. Who'd have guessed it?) Of course every article returned the same spelling - they all derived from the same text! Had you read any of them you would have recognized this immediately. A quick inspection of the company website or even a glance at the results of a non-restrictive Google search would have demonstrated that there is no obviously "correct" usage except perhaps "greenqloud".

Now maybe this was a careless error, but since you elected to dictate terms in lieu of providing those "reliable sources" that informed your action I'm inclined rather to believe it a fit of pique. I don't know why this article is a bee in your bonnet, but you're well-advised to stop quarreling with the original author and work elsewhere until you can exercise more circumspection. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm certain it wasn't so harsh when I wrote it. What I meant was, please be more careful, please play nicely (especially with a new editor), and if something about this article irritates you (as inevitably happens from time to time), take a break from it and return in a week to see if it's at all improved. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

From the company's own home page, unedited: •Introducing GreenQloud, the world’s first truly green public compute cloud. Perhaps the fact the company's logo consists of the company's name in all-lowercase has confused some people into thinking the Q should be lowercase. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

--Eirikurh (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Just my two cents as I am the founder of GreenQloud. Please appologies my Wiki editing skills! When writing greenqloud in articles and on the web we use GreenQloud with a capitalized Q. The reason is simply so people don't think it is a G as it may seem to be in many web fonts. The logo uses a lower case Q. Btw I made some changes today mostly around clarifying what we do as we are much more like Amazon Web services than a web hosting company. In other words we a public compute cloud (IaaS) and I added GreenQloud as well to the Cloud Computing template. Btw we have a new website now which explains the Truly Green part and more details. Thanks for creating the page about us!