Talk:FreeJ

User:Philpraxis I think this article should not be deleted. FreeJ is important free software contribution. —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

Does this really read like an advertisement??? I think it conforms to NPOV as it doesn't bash other programs or blatantly espouse the cause of Free Software. It is quite informative of the specifications and features of the program. And it IS free software, so it's not like it could make money off of exposure on wikipedia. Whoever marked it didn't care enough to start a talk page about it. Why? I guess a few words could be taken out here and there, like saying "it makes it easy to...", but overall I think the person that this article was flagged unjustly. Why not just start a talk page asking if it should be flagged?? Thanks.. 69.244.215.101 18:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * something very similar happened here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dyne:bolic#Neutrality flagged POV without any comment nor a contribution to fix. The article was edited briefly after someone made your same remark and took the POV flag out. i hope someone more constructive will intervene here too. jaromil 11:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only does it read like an ad, it's taken directly from their website, which would be copyright violation in most instances. — Omegatron 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait. Jaromil's one of the developers of FreeJ. I should have suspected. The article's not that bad, but it sounds like a website promoting the software (and is, indeed, copied directly from one). It just needs to be re-worded to sound less like tooting one's own horn and more like an encyclopedia article. Use your own website to promote your products, not this one. — Omegatron 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

please note i didn't created the article. i intervene here because i noticed you've been asked (not even by me, but someone else) to detail your POV pushing instead of just placing the tag on the page, but you didn't, nor you contributed an edit. also note that there can't be such a copyright violation as you claim, as clearly stated on the webpage and in software licensing it is all GNU GPL/FDL. Thanks for your attention to details. jaromil 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A have to agree that the article is written in a non-encyclopedic manner. It does read like something from an open source advocacy website - ie. an advert.
 * It needs working through and more general language using in order to remedy this.-Localzuk(talk) 16:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at fixing it. --Loupgaroublond (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)