Talk:Actifio

Speedy Deletion

This article may be salvageable. There are some legitimate news items, such as at Motley Fool and Storage Newsletter. -- Donald Albury 12:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the tag and improve the article, Donald. There's no claim of notability in the article, and the {{db-company}} tag is legitimate. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the template, just as I didn't delete the article, as I feel that it is borderline. I won't get my knickers in a twist if another admin decides to delete it. -- Donald Albury 21:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added some references (the Fool and Storage Newsletter) as well as some more content. I do hope we can keep from deleting this. --SFoskett (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Parts of this article have that highly recognizable promotional, self-serving taint. However, other parts read factually and without personal interest. This is a sizable company of good repute as far as I can see, even if it is young in a fast-changing field. And at a glance, some sources are credible and seem to confirm Actifio's innovative impact on storage technology and business. It presents an interesting problem in my mind as to where one draws the line in regard to new and creative technologies. Granted the company is only about 7 years old, but countless other Wiki pages are based on events that last mere minutes. I'd hate to see a company get "punished" for being young and successful. If they are having an impact on business and technology then that may be of general interest and concern to others. I think Wiki should reconsider allowing for a rewrite. If the marketing lingo can be removed and the resulting article is reasonably unbiased and factual then I think it is of public interest and should be retained. I feel strongly about this. Jerry.

• • Let me be more specific about the parts I'm concerned about. The rest is fine, or almost so. "Products" is bad, and so is the "Appliances" section, we don't need product placement on a Wiki page. If that were removed and "Products" adopted a more neutral tone I do believe it would be out of the swamp. Or maybe "Appliances" could be rewritten too? Any feedback? ~Jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • As a quick example, instead of "Actifio's products work by dramatically reducing unnecessary duplication..." how 'bout, "Acifio claims to dramatically reduce unnecessary duplication..."

And instead of "Actifio's products create a single "golden master" of production data and maintain changes to that master copy..." it could be, "Actifio uses a process described as "golden master," that purportedly maintains a single master of production data and also maintains changes to that master copy..." Better? Of course I don't even know if my diction is a proper description of the process, but I'm thinking it's close. You may say my suggested changes are a cosmetic attempt to hide the sales pitch. But I disagree. If Actifio's claims are true then I can easily imagine many people being interested in that process, for both financial and technological reasons. I mean, we could be talking about billions of dollars and a large paradigm shift in techno thinking. Is that worth Wikipedia? You tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Okay, I think I've said enough. I'm glad things have cooled down with this page. I think those involved truly do have Wiki's best interest at heart. In my very short time in here I've seen the problems that have to be contended with, Wiki is besieged with attempts to turn it into a blog or Facebook extension. I think Actifio was caught up in the fervor. I wish this page the best and I hope the needed changes are made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:D881:6C8:35AC:EA7C (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

my change was reverted

I see something I did was reverted. At this point I'm going to step back from this project for others. Sorry if my changes were detrimental. Good luck. And an additional note, the reversion has resulted in an incoherency. I hope that editor reconsiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@J. M. Pearson: if you are referring to Actifio, I did not revert your changes. I made additional editorial changes after yours, removing some of the promotional language. You can perhaps see this clearly if you examine the article history. There's a tab for that at the top of the article page. Please continue to make improvements. - Brianhe (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't not have this: "Creating a "golden master" of production data allows for rapid manipulation and recovery of data if needed." What I had was much more readable. What's there now is total nonsense. I don't know what happened, but that's not what I had, unless I somehow screwed up with the "save." I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, it's just that I'm convinced I'd attained a high level of readability. Now it's messed up. Do you have plans to improve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@J. M. Pearson: why don't you go ahead and edit that sentence again? I believe my substantive change was to delete the "the basic idea is..." language, which seemed like a non-encyclopedic WP:TONE to me.

• before: The basic idea is to create a "golden master" of production data that allows for a rapid manipulation and recovery of data if needed.
• after: Creating a "golden master" of production data allows for rapid manipulation and recovery of data if needed.

As long as we aren't editwarring, there's nothing wrong with more polishing of the language in the section. Also, since we are talking here, do you mind if I move these comments to the Actifio talkpage instead? - Brianhe (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not "editwarring," I'm discussing. I felt that addition conveyed to the reader the complexity of the process and that the subsequent description was a simplified version. These articles are supposed to be for the average person, right? Yeah, move to other talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
• ...to continue, the continuity of that sentence has been lost and the entire par has been negatively affected. If you don't want my change that's fine, but it requires a repair of some kind or it's incoherent. I'm not married to the idea, but a small improvement is better than no improvement at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if my meaning wasn't clear. I meant that because we are discussing the issue, it is not edit warring, and you are free to make subsequent edits. Please continue to improve the language in the Products section or anywhere else. I do not WP:OWN this article. - Brianhe (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh sure, there's no problem here. I'm totally for the article, this isn't about me. And you may have been right after all, so I removed "basic" because it may have had the bad effect of conveying the opposite of what I wanted. You made the better choice, my "repair" does not include that. Also, please know that I'm new and sure to be making dumb mistakes. Please be patient. :)

• Also, what do you think of this? "The system uses a virtualization of the data management and storage process to replace the user's siloed data applications with a single purpose-built system." I'm trying to reduce the technical tension of the description. Further, it removes the slight redundancy, "data management and storage process" is already mention in that sentence.

  • Never mind, that suggestion won't work. Not thinking clearly. :(

I got your message Brianhe

Hello, sorry if you are upset about my changes. But please know I fought for this page, to keep it. And I wholeheartedly disagree with your reversion, it resulted in nonsense. And I did explain my changes on this page, but after you reverted I deleted it. Thought I was doing you a service, but maybe I'm too new to be messing. Live and learn. But for cripes sake, please fix the reversion, it's making me physically sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)