Just thought I'd let you know, I've reverted your edits to whisper campaign; it appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the "how gay is this guy" meme (see, e.g., this article in the Wikipedia Signpost. Cordially, Meelar (talk) 03:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'll look into some other examples, though; this could really use some expansion. Feel free to keep an eye on it. Best, Meelar (talk) 03:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Sleepnomore! I really appreciate you stepping up and helping out with the category for Born-again Christians! That is an awesome stand for the Lord and you are the first person to see that Wikipedia does have a bias toward true Christianity as far as my battles against Wikipedia have gone. I have quit editing on Wikipedia because of their bias but still check some of the talk pages and I was thrilled to see your messages and the description of the category that you added. I hate to say it, but I wouldn't expect that description to stay there too long. The people who seem to think that they run Wikipedia will most likely take offense and remove it. It is good that you put it there though because it does belong there. Good job! Thanks for the backup! --phatcat68 23:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand adding the 24SevenOffice link in RIA can be seen as advertising since I added it. But it is in fact a very relevant link. If that link is advertising so is the other links in the list. The link is not included in the main article text but in a list. I really think it should be re-added. Please let me know if you disagree. --Sleepyhead81 10:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 24SevenOffice is a very well-known company in Norway so just that proves that it is notable. I am very open about my employment in 24SevenOffice and have made it quite clear that I do not intend to make it an advertisement. Feel free to change the 24SevenOffice article if you think the text is subjective or like advertising. In regards to the links I have added that only in relevant pages such as Ajax, RIA and list of CRM vendors. I can gurantee you that 24SevenOffice is relevant in terms of those topics. If you email me (espen AT inspired DOT no) I can give you a demo login to the system where you can see that it is a very advanced RIA/Ajax web-application. I have seen many companies who try to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium and adding links all over where it is not relevant (i.e. BlinkList) --Sleepyhead81 10:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because you haven't heard about the company doesn't mean is not notable. You can see the press section at the webpage and you will see that the company has got broad press coverage in Norway. The company has won several awards including one at the biggest IT conference in the world - CeBit. I know 24SevenOffice is not very well known, like for example Microsoft Office which you compare to, but the company is notable. --Sleepyhead81 10:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that section. Honestly. I really know it seems like I did. In fact I was suprised to see it as it is quite a through comparison. I'll dig up the author on that later. --Sleepyhead81 10:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Im pretty sure it was added by either S.K. or Andrewspencer. They both have contributed a lot to that article. --Sleepyhead81 10:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I added that text but that was not the text you removed from the article. It was however a true statement. See the next edited by Andrewspencer. It was him who added the long text about comparison between NetSuite and 24SevenOffice. Like I said, I don't add text like that to other articles - only links where relevant. The text added by Andrewspencer is quite thorough and should be kept. --Sleepyhead81 10:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• He is far from a sockpuppet or colleague. He is in fact a competitor. I read his blog at http://netsuitecompendium.com/ which is about NetSuite. Im not sure how he is related to that company though. --Sleepyhead81 11:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to start a revert war. We are obviously holding different views on this. It should be discussed on the article's talk page so other users can state their views.

• "You were the first to revert the topic after I removed the offending link. I will bring this up in the discussion, but for now, please leave your link out of this". Then the link should be kept as it was initially. Keep it until discussed on the talk page. Just as the JAXASS link was kept (as per your comments) in AJAX until the article was deleted. --Sleepyhead81 10:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See NetSuite talk. I did not write that section. Your claims are incorrect. Discuss it with the other contributors. Leave text until a decision is made on the talk page. --Sleepyhead81 16:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you have seen my communication with 24.53.131.244, he seems to be a newbie and thus I have not blocked this person yet... and directed him to the policy pages. That said, even though he does not really have the right to blank those sections yet, he has every right to tag it as disputed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the JJG pages, it feels like all he is doing is attacking you. You provide proof of the criticism, and as a NPOV encyclopedia, we have to provide the not so great side of him. Keep up the good work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is Jesse James Garrett attacking him? I am the one who has been most involved in trying to keep this article NPOV, someone who is decidedly *not* Mr. Garrett, and all Sleepnomore has been able to do is sling around accusations that I'm either acting through sockpuppets or representing Mr. Garrett somehow. This is ludicrous. Meanwhile, the article is currently locked in a very point-of-view' state -- it contains a link to criticism voiced by Sleepnomore on his own website, something that simply can't be tolerated. Jason 20:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use talk pages before removing links to the 24SevenOffice article. You are currently behaving in an elitist manner. Other contributors might not agree with your views. --Sleepyhead81 15:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]