User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2008/June

Jethro Gibbs
I'm afraid i've reverted your edits; the "unexplained revert" by an IP was based on the fact that 20 Kb of data between your edit and the previous edit went walkies. Ironholds 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've again removed the material in question. It's deletion has been reasoned; please see the AfD discussion and the article's talk page if you're interested in the conversation that led to the removal of this material. I'm sorry the quantity of the removal is so large, but if a lot of material doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines, a lot of material gets removed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough. btw, someones vandalised your userpage in the "interests" section; i thought you might want to deal with it yourself since with the intermediate edits by you i'm worried about screwing it up. 15:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've cleaned it up. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on your user page
I just tried to follow the link to your Business 2.0 letter and it goes to a very strange place. Looks like it was vandalised in this edit. - Pointillist (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've set it straight. Thanks for letting me know! -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Civil?
Can you kindly explain this remark? Thanks & sorry if you think I assumed bad faith.... --Karnesky (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I assume that you mean this 2.5 month old edit.  Apologies if you took personal offense.  I thought that it was obvious that GnuCash met WP:N, as one of the older, most popular (included in numerous distributions and collections of software) open source projects which has very extensive independent media coverage.  Even casual research shows this & I thought you were being a bit overzealous.  Still, the article was minimally cited & perhaps my choice of words was too strong.  Thank you for trying to improve the article.  --Karnesky (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, your choice of words was too strong. If this is widely distributed free software, that's great; but the article is barely discernible from the many non-notable crapware articles that have been created to promote software that's clearly not notable. It's up to the article to provide references, and at the time that I added N, the article had only two references; one from the project itself, and the another a link to online bug tracking software that seems to fail WP:SPS. The article still doesn't establish the notability that you claim in your comments here, and the references it provides are either primary sources or not footnoted.
 * Anyway, thanks for following up! -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)