User talk:2A00:A040:187:AE7F:1D8D:89BA:D718:DFFA

May 2021
Hello, I'm Notfrompedro. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Doxygen have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern 21-05-2021
Hello, I understand your concern and I too, care about Wikipedia. If there was any wrongdoing on my part, I apologize. Thank god for users like you who safeguard Wikipedia.

However, I disagree with your review. I tried to revert the removal of the content that I had added and I gave a justification in the reason for reverting the removal. Please see the justification I had written just now.

I admit completely that I am the creator of SoftaCheck and I do intend to make knowledge of its existence publically available. I am doing so via ad campaigns, guest posts on blogs and other methods including through constructive updating of information on Wikipedia that does not violate the terms of Wikipedia. In the end, Wikipedia promotes knowledge. If someone wants an open-source tool like Doxygen and wants to learn about it, I see no reason not to mention that there are tools that help make it easier to use Doxygen. I think that is information users would be glad to learn about. There are many commercial tools with descriptions on Wikipedia and references to them from other articles. I think that adding a factually based reference to SoftaCheck is totally relevant as long as it makes sense and is in line with the article and adds knowledge and helps users.

The same thing goes for the Wikipedia title of "List of tools for static code analysis" and "cppcheck". Why did you remove those too? I gave good justification as to why these additions should be accepted.

If you think I am wrong, I would love to learn how I could write and add such information while being in line with Wikipedia's terms.

By the way, I created a Wikipedia account under the name Gerberey.

Thanks, Eyal


 * I've removed those additions. Note the important paragraph at the top of the page:
 * EDITORS, PLEASE NOTE:
 * This article is covered under Wikipedia's guidelines for standalone lists. This means that the only tools that should be listed here are ones that have their own articles on Wikipedia. This is not the place to have external links to a tool's homepage or anything like that. Tools that fail to meet this criteria (of having an article) may be deleted per our guidelines. If the tool has no article, consider writing one first.
 * peterl (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply 22.05.2021
Thanks peterl. I finally understand the requirement. I will add a page soon. Thanks. Gerberey.
 * Great. Don't forget to address the issues raised regarding notability, particularly around reliable sources that are independent of the subject. peterl (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Reply 31.05.2021
Hi peterl, I just wanted to let you know that I created the Wikipedia page for softacheck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SoftaCheck. Would you be willing to review it?