User talk:Ed lu

ATOMIC Authoring Tool
Hello, Ed. Thanks for the messages to my talk page about ATOMIC Authoring Tool. I do fully understand why you were not 100% civil first time - I can imagine how pissed off you felt, seeing your work destroyed, and I do remember when I was new to Wikipedia how bewildering it seemed, with a forest of rules and policies, and established editors and administrators seeming to be determined to frusrtate me. Actually, once you get used to it you learn that it's not really like that, but it can seem that way to a newcomer. In response to your messages to me I have restored the article. There are three different deletion processes in Wikipedia (don't blame me: if it were up to me everything would be much simpler). The article was deleted via "proposed deletion", commonly abbreviated to "PROD". This is only for "uncontroversial" deletions, and since you have contested the deletion on my talk page it is clearly not uncontroversial, which is why I have restored the article. The article was deleted because another editor (not me) had proposed the deletion, and after a week nobody had contested the proposal: my own role was purely to take the administrative action of making the deletion, and did not indicate a personal opinion that it should be deleted. The article cannot be deleted again via PROD, as you have indicated it is not uncontroversial. However, if anyone still wants the article to be deleted they may invite others to discuss whether it should be deleted at Articles for Deletion (commonly "AfD"). If this is done you will be able to take part in the discussion, and defend the article. However, in fairness I think I should warn you about two things. Firstly, I regard it as a matter of courtesy when I undelete an article to inform the editor who proposed the deletion, so there is a significant chance that they may take it to AfD. Secondly, I think that in its present form the article is very unlikely to survive if it is taken to AfD. It has no references to independent sources to indicate notability, which is essential. (Neither its own web site nor SourceForge would be regarded as an independent source.) If you wish to keep the article you should look into the question of notability and sources. You should look at the general notability guideline and the guideline on reliable sources to see what is required. There is a bewildering range of these guidelines, far too many in my opinion, but I think those two are the ones you need to concern yourself with at the moment. I have not investigated ATOMIC Authoring Tool myself, but unfortunately in general open source software rarely has the right sort of coverage (except, of course, the really big names like GNU, Linux, Open Office, etc), and so articles about such projects rarely survive AfD. I strongly advise you to look at the guidelines and see if you think that the subject does qualify. If the answer is "yes" then you need to add suitable references to show that it is notable. If the answer is "no" then you may well be better advised to spend your time trying to publicise it in other ways than on Wikipedia: no amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

hi

thanks for your exaustive answer.

don't get me wrong: I didnt write the article, I steped on it the day before deletion without noticing it would be deleted. as I said the contense helped me a lot as entrance to the subject "aumented reality". I will be digging further ... as to now I just wish to atract your atention to the fact that resarching about a theme you might be or are interested in practical aplication (which was my case). the article about "Augmented reality" references to ARToolkit and this article references to the homepage of "Atomic" and the article "ATOMIC Web Authoring Tool" which we are talking about.

Idoubt I will go into a quarrel about this article, but I think the way it is serves without saying that another information construct, being conform with the wikipedia rules, would be better.

I think that in tecnical (especially for freeware in programing) applications there should be other rules than in personal or science. Atomic, which really is not much, is a good example for practical entrance in a new field. I mean with this aplication you are able to enter the field of patern's and wrl's. a quick aproach to ponder if you will realy dig the field or not. I mean the program Atomic serves. anyway my concern now is that someone like you understand the chain I folowed and posibly does something that such chaines grow and serve the users of the wiki

thanks

Ed lu (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)