Talk:Streamer (software)

There is no copyright infringement because article was written by the copyright holder Jeff key upon my request (see below Jeff's email as of today) Pflatau


 * from Jeff Key     hide details  6:43 pm (1 hour ago)
 * to pcirrus@gmail.com
 * date Apr 1, 2007 6:43 PM
 * subject Re: streamer, fluxnet
 * mailed-by ssec.wisc.edu


 * Very nice Piotr! Thanks for listing Streamer. I quickly added a page for Streamer, and that page has a paragraph on FluxNet:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamer:_A_Radiative_Transfer_Model
 * Sorry for the long title, but there was already a "Streamer" page.
 * Jeff


 * Jeffrey R. Key
 * NOAA/NESDIS, 1225 West Dayton St., Madison, WI 53706
 * phone: (608) 263-2605, fax: (608) 262-5974
 * e-mail: jkey at ssec.wisc.edu or Jeff.Key at noaa.gov
 * web: http://stratus.ssec.wisc.edu


 * Please follow the copyright permissions confirmation procedure shown on this page to confirm this permission. Additionally, please note that Wikipedia editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles about subjects to which they are connected. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I rewrote this entry completely without looking at other text. Please remove the copyvio. The editors are encouraged to  edit subjects to which they are connected (this is a definition of expert) as long as they keep NPOV, no original research, no self-promotion. Clearly the code was peer reviewed, it is often used (easy to check on google, google scholar), and it is on public domain. Also, as I mentioned originaly, it was me who requested that author describes his work in the first place. Pflatau


 * I've asked for someone else to take a look at the copyvio issues. As far as NPOV is concerned, I noticed that in copying the text from the source page, the author decided to omit just three sections, two of which could be considered negative (one about the program being in beta, the second dealing with its limitations). This may or may not have been a POV push, but the fact that the author is also connected to the project certainly calls his objectivity into question. This is why editors are not encouraged to edit subjects to which they are personally connected. That's not the definition of an expert, but it is the definition of Conflict of Interest. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Butseriouslyfolks - I do not think you understand the situation. This article was rewritten by myself - and I am not the author of the code. I added references  and changed the text. We need experts writting articles in wikipedia.  In any case, this article is OK as it is. 192.160.158.113


 * I understand the situation. I was referring to the original text of the article. Since nobody else at WP:SCV has apparently been by to examine this page, I have taken another look at it and removed the copyvio and coi templates.  Thanks for rewriting the article! --Butseriouslyfolks 02:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)