Physitsky
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Montco (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- To be consistent, you need to remove all links in this section. The Section entitled References and Authorities already includes the relevant links to professional organizations.
- The additional links in the External Links section that remain continue to be irrelevant and commercially inclined: Both NACVA and AICPA sites offer products for sale.
February 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to First Chicago Method. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Flowanda | Talk 12:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Please review these policies before editing edit
Hello. I believe you need to brush up on the following policies, as evidenced by your disruptive and unsubstantiated edits to the Sageworks page: WP:NPOV, WP:WORDS, WP:WEASEL to name just a few.
For example: you cite a report that talks about financial institutions being at risk for cyber attack. You then point to the fact that the company has financial institution clients, so therefore they are a high risk target. The source is "reliable," but it has no bearing on the company in question, and it comes across as a very thinly veiled attempt to make a baseless allegation.
We clearly don't see eye to eye on this subject, which is why I've asked several senior editors to review the page. Regardless, I'd advise you to review the policies above before making further edits to the page. --77 woodmont (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'd advise you to cease persistent attempts to disguise known risks posed by Sageworks services. As long as you continue to distort the picture, I will continue to rectify it. --Physitsky (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Kaspersky Lab report clearly indicates the danger of storing private customer data on web-facing systems. It stands to reason that Sageworks, which does store such data on web-accessible systems, is a high value target for cyber criminals, posing a known risk for its customers.
- In addition, Sageworks seeks to evade resposibility for possible data breach by putting up a hold harmless clauses in its Terms of Use. Clear evidence of the confidence level in their ability to safeguard customer data. --Physitsky (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Classic 1 + 1 = 14 logic, in my opinion, but we'll see what a few more seasoned editors have to contribute here. --77 woodmont (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've begun commenting at the article. I come here to specifically invite Physitsky to make a statement at Talk:Sageworks#editors associated with the subject?; could you state there whether or not you have any association with the company or any competitor, please? wp:COI recommends disclosure of associations. I am making this request to everyone, to help remove concerns about COI editing that have been raised. And hey, both of you, you are both making over-statements here, I think. Do let's discuss the data issues, about privacy and disclosure and risk and Terms of Use, at Talk:Sageworks. If there is not a section focussing on that exact topic yet, someone should open one. --doncram 22:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)