Talk:EasyHDR

talk did not start discussion here about the COI tag placed in the article, so I will. Well, it's not any secret that I am the developer of the described software and (see my nick) I am not hiding with it. I tried to write the initial article as neutral as I could and I am not going to update it any more. It would be great if someone could review it and decide whether it has any ad-like bias.

''To be honest, Wikipedia (as an entity) is biased on some software in the HDR category. It's a matter of probability - the market is not big, so there may be tens of thousands of users of several applications that are not described on Wiki pages (no Wikipedia editors use them), while some other app can have just hundreds of users and it is linked everywhere on Wiki as one of the most notable. BTW, what can be said about COI and notability of software for which an article on Wikipedia appeared on the same day the software was released to the public (software starting with letter "A")?''

Revision as of 2019/04/14
This is weired. The argument for reverting my attempt to bring this article up to date reads "Inadequate explanation as to why an editor who has not worked on this article before feels justification regarding COI + many other changes made not covered in edit summary".

Thanks a lot for helping me understand,
 * Is there, in the English Wikipedia, an obligation to repeat and comment any single change made in the article (which, by the way, can easily be tracked using the history tool)?
 * Is, in the English Wikipedia, only he, who has worked on an article before, qualified to edit it again and remove a COI? Should not, on the contrary, the management of a COI involve new users?
 * I am quite puzzled that I myself as a user of the particular software do not qualify for removing a COI. Does an an obligation exist in the English Wikipedia that only Wikipedia users who are not users of a particular software are qualified to edit a Wikipedia article on a particular software (in this case, easyHDR)? How is this going to be verified? How can quality standards be met by non-users...???
 * Who at all, in your opinion, Lopifalko, is qualified to remove a COI then (except for yourself)?
 * Is it possible that there exists an interest to not have the article updated (including example photographs)?

Best regards, Welt-der-Form (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Welt-der-Form. You wrote: "-COI notice. I do not have any connection with the developer apart from the fact that I am a frequent user of the software." I understood this to mean that you were removing the COI notice because it was aimed at you and you did not agree with it. I checked whether you had edited the article previously and could see that you had not, so your edit summary seemed misguided. What justification do you have for removing the COI notice?
 * Also, you are expected to give a summary of your changes. Your changes were substantial and yet you described nothing other than the COI notice removal. I reverted your edit so that you could instead make them again, perhaps without removing the COI notice, and at least with a proper edit summary. Thank you. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing a COI warning, whilst making substantial changes without describing them in the edit summary, looked suspicious. Please re-add your changes with a proper description of what they are, thanks. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)