User talk:Jefvdo

DBEdit2
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of DBEdit2, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://dbedit2.sourceforge.net. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of DBEdit 2
A tag has been placed on DBEdit 2, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DBEdit2
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article DBEdit2, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non-notable software.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  TN ‑  X   - Man  15:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of DBEdit 2
A tag has been placed on DBEdit 2, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DBEdit 2
I have nominated DBEdit 2, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/DBEdit 2. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

 * Why is it deleted now? I rewrote the complete article as you suggested earlier to make it notable. It is completely different now and not advertising in any way. Jefvdo (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As a non-admin, I can't see deleted versions so I can't run a comparison. (I don't know if the deleting admin this time around checked the older version.) But two primary issues brought out during the previous discussion were notability and conflict of interest. I didn't expect that something had occurred to substantially increase the notability of the software in just a few weeks, and the conflict of interest issue still remains since you are, after all, the creator of the software, so I don't think it's unreasonable for me to think that your primary goal in posting an article again, especially after and despite the deletion discussion, is a strong interest in promoting it, which is of course not permitted.
 * If there were sufficient grounds for posting a new article after the previous deletion discussion, it would have been helpful for you to leave a note on the article's Talk page explaining what remedial measures you had taken in the new version. If you repost the article and leave such an explanation, I'll be sure to take a look. (Of course, others may make their own evaluations.) Meanwhile, I've removed the warning I left here earlier. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I reposted the article as you asked, please take a look. In our first discussion, you had a problem with the word "suitable", so I rewrote that paragraph. I also explained more about the source code and the history of the project. The article is not trying to convince anyone to use the application, but it just sheds some light on the project. The fact remains that I am the creator, I can't do much about that, but is it that an issue no matter what?
 * If you still don't agree with the posting, please tell me how I can make it better. Thanks. Jefvdo (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well&#8212;when you say, "I am the creator, I can't do much about that," the standard response is, "that's why you shouldn't write the article". Wikipedia strongly discourages writing on topics that pose a conflict of interest for you. See WP:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia is also not to be used for the purpose of promoting anything. This is irrespective of whether any profit is involved.
 * I agree that the article is now worded neutrally, but the COI remains, and the article still contains no evidence of notability or any reference to neutral third-party reliable sources. I've tagged the article accordingly. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I mentioned a reliable source by referencing SourceForge, both the Wikipedia page, as well as the project page. SourceForge has a very reliable and disciplined procedure of verifying new projects when they are submitted and is well known and trusted organsiation with a large community. Even the project I'm describing has its own community, on the referenced project page, there's a forum, a bug tracker, and more. Jefvdo (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When I saw the link titled "Project site" I assumed it meant your project site. I've just made made the text of that link more explicit. But as far as SourceForge is concerned, isn't the information displayed just whatever information you gave them to display? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * True. Jefvdo (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So it isn't a neutral, unbiased, third-party reliable source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)