KMPLS

Copyright problem: Lawson Software

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Lawson Software, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.lawson.com/wcw.nsf/pub/Corp_0001, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Lawson Software and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Lawson Software with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Lawson Software.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Lawson Software/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Lawson Software saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! S.K. 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: I assume you're somehow related to the company and this was intentional, but since Wikipedia can't be sure, following the above procedure should be in Wikipedia as well as Lawsons interest. --S.K. 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer regarding Lawson at my page

KMPLS, I've replied at User talk:S.K.. You accidently posted the question to my user page, please use the discussion page instead. Thanks. --S.K. 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawson Software

I saw your note about aggressive editting (sic) and being unavailable because you're taking a break and that you won't respond to comments posted until that message is deleted. I'm hoping that perhaps you forgot to delete the message and that you will respond to this one.

I noted some pretty heavy editing of the Lawson site and would like to reinstate a good portion of the information. Here's the outline of what I'd like to see reappear:

• Leadership. How is it considered advertising to post a company's leaders in a very factual manner? What was posted was merely a restatement of information that previously came from Forbes.
• Industries served. Again, why is it considered advertising to state which types of specific companies (e.g. hospitals and other healthcare organizations) do business with Lawson?
• Applications. Why is it considered advertising to talk more about specific applications that Lawson sells. Marketing-ease had been completely eliminated from the language to make it factual.
• Services. Again, merely stating the types of services offered by Lawson seems pretty factual.
• Customers. Again, this is all information that was taken from reliable third-party sources that simply state what the customers use and why they chose Lawson. Seems pretty factual to me.

I'd appreciate a reply and a reinstatement of information. Thanks. --KMPLS (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The rules are pretty clear, and various recent edits had taken it from an valid encyclopedic company article to a copy of their own marketing data. The customers section was the worst version of pure advertext I have seen in a while - a straight rip-off of marketing materials with marketing text. Your edit of 16 November added 4kbytes of advertext customer lists - why, it adds no encyclopedic value? (Do we for instance list all of Microsoft or IBM or SunMS's customers?) You say there are references - but where were/are they? I assume you are tied to the company, as you don't seem to see the problems of the previous article version. Also, please follow noted Wiki procedure and add news messages at the bottom of User Talk Pages, and not aggresivly but direct editting or adding your message at the top - Thank You! Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be smart here, but if the rules are pretty clear, why are we having this discussion? But that's beside the point.

I'll admit that better references are needed for the customer information, but to argue the point, not every single Lawson customer was listed (they have more than 4,000 customers and only a handful were listed). I believe it's valid to list customers to give readers a feel for what types of companies do business with Lawson. I'm working on better references. If I get them, can the information be reinstated?

Also, regarding other references, there's a long list of references for the leadership information (all from Forbes), references for product information (from Reuters, Information Week, and HR Executive Online), so I'm not sure why all of the product info was eliminated. I'd like to see it reinstated. At some point in the past couple of months, another editor validated our references, so I'm not sure why this is coming up again. Again, I'm requesting reinstatement of the product information.

Also, sorry for messing the Wiki protocol and putting my message at the top. --KMPLS (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the appologies. The bottom line is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and NOT a piece of advertising. Again, I cite back to articles on larger/more notable software companies that: don't list their customers, don't list all the executives, don't list the reason as to why customers bought the product (the later was just pure advertext dragged from marketing materials). Re the exec's bio, yes there was a reference but the wiki convention is only to list those needed for the company info box UNLESS the person warrants a seperate wiki article of their own. I assume as you are a company employee, that you know there is a wiki convention that advises you against writing on such an article due to conflict of interest? If you have a look at a similar companies article, like for instance a Microsft, and see how that is structured, that should be a good guide as to how to structure and what to include in a good article. Lawson certainly deserves an article, but the advertising text and tone was just too OTT and risked its total removal from the project. Best Seasonal Regards, - Trident13 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am not employed by Lawson. Second of all, just because Microsfit doesn't have customers or execs listed, does that make it the de facto standard for all Wiki articles? I noted that on Microsoft's page, there is information on business culture and user culture, which I don't necessarily view as something that can be viewed as 100 percent factual.

Point taken regarding execs who would warrant a separate page of their own; however, it's a one or two sentence description of each person's background. I'm going to the mat on the information that was taken out regarding products, industries and applications. All of that was backed up by unbiased sources, and I certainly feel it is germaine for the public to have a basic understanding of Lawson's products, the industries it serves and applications offered. I would view advertext as something that is saying "this is the best HR offering ever," but the current text merely states this is what the company offers and what's included in the application.

Cheers.

--KMPLS (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - you seem to be unfocused on what an encyclopedia is and what detail is necessary - have a look here WP:GA? on the wikipedia guidelines, and particularly Section 3B. Apart form the text included in the article pre my edits being advertext, it was also unecessaryily detailed. It is difficult to judge what needs/should not be included - some of the kiddy-interest and soap articles, or the topical subjects for instance - want to include everything that occurs: and for some of the topical articles at that moment thats fine and necessary. But in the Lawsons article the added text form the last three months just add more details on products and did include text on why customers choose it (hence - advertext. It was just pure copy of their own marketing). Putting that aside for one moment, and assuming those details change as the products develop, the external link to their own website would provide those details in an up to date manner anyway - so why include them? The text on the execs, the details on the products, and the customers (unless any of it is notable - and none of it referenced to sufficent third party sources) is all unnecessary for an encyclopedic article, and were outside Wiki guidelines - that's why I removed it. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)