User talk:TechmanTom78

Hello, I'm Fieryninja. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Nerf have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Fieryninja (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Fieryninja it was just an article about how Nerf accessories/toys can be 3D printed. Was the article not a good one though? TechmanTom78 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not clear why you think this is necessary to add to the article, but at the very least, it looks like an unreliable source. Fieryninja (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Just thought it was some interesting information is all. TechmanTom78 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gigamon without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. also added promotional sounding content, see WP:NPOV Waxworker (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gigamon, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigamon until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello TechmanTom78. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Gigamon, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:TechmanTom78. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=TechmanTom78|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Scope creep I'm retired now, but I've spent 30+ years in the networking and infrastructure space, so I know a thing or two about which companies actually matter in this industry. Gigamon is not some fly-by-night operation. They've been a legitimate player in network visibility and traffic intelligence for years.

Nominating an article for deletion should be a last resort, not a first response. Before slapping an AfD tag on something, the expectation is that editors make a good-faith effort to improve it by cleaning up the sourcing and language. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

The company clearly meets notability standards if you look at the appeal discussion.

So to answer your question... No. I am not being compensated for my edits to this page. TechmanTom78 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Cool. I'm 30+ plus years as a software engineer. I started off doing a 802.3 network stack a on arm device, so I know quite a bit about networks. The company is no more notable notable than any other other startup and the coverage shows that, which is clearly absent. scope_creep^Talk 04:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That’s foundational work. My own background from that era involved ASIC-based packet forwarding. How far we have all come! Since the actual merits of the Gigamon article are being debated on the appeal, I won't clutter this talk page with the details. I appreciate your opinion and look forward to working with you on more pages. TechmanTom78 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)