User talk:Mikolardos



Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions. It's great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia - the more constructive editors the better!

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Getting the articles just right can be tricky - but there are lots of people to ask!

If you have any questions, just click on the Contact Me link after my signature at the end of this section. Alternatively, check out Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question.

By the way, when you are writing on a discussion page (or someone's talk page), it is considered good manners to sign your comment... to do this, just add  at the end of your comment. That will put your user name and the date/time at the end (or you can click on the  icon when you are editing. Never sign on an article page - only on a discussion page.

I am now going to add my signature, using : --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 09:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

CrashRpt
May I politely suggest that you give further arguments in favour of keeping the above article at Articles for deletion/CrashRpt. The argument that 'others like this exist' isn't generally accepted for deletion discussions - and particularly not in this case, as CrashRpt is not a mainstream library like the others I found on Wikipedia (see my comment on the AfD page for a more thorough discussion of this).

Also, there is no need to be rude about other editors, as you were on the Afd discussion.

Also, the references I removed did not mention CrashRpt. On Wikipedia, references must include a mention to the subject. The references that you had used did not - they merely confirmed the existance of other libraries, etc - and that is not the purpose of references in the CrashRpt article.

You mentioned other software libraries that exist. All the ones that I found during a quick search on Wikipedia were of libraries created by (and/or used by) Microsoft and Borland - both big names in computing. If you have examples of others which you were thinking of, then please feel free to let me know (just reply on this page).

Again, let me emphasise that you need to present other arguments for keeping the article.

The AfD is not a vote - the closing administrator will look at all of the discussion, and based on the arguments presented, will decide whether the article should be kept or not. It is the quality of the argument that is important, not the number of votes.

Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 09:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the AfD, you asked what could be done to improve the article:
 * More references mentioning CrashRpt at reliable sources would certainly help.
 * Some evidence of why CrashRpt is notable - at the moment, it seems like one of millions of software libraries out there - not used by any big companies or in any big applications.
 * For CrashRpt to be justified in having an article, it needs to be notable. The general guidelines at WP:NOTE say If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
 * There are no specific guidelines for software, so notability is covered by the general guidelines at WP:NOTE.
 * I hope this helps - if you have further questions, just leave a message on this page (it's on my watchlist, so I will know when it had been changed). --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 10:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Phantom Steve,

I agree with you that it is not mentioned in any reliable source and not used by any big software. I agree that the article shouldn't be a part of Wikipedia. I'm sorry that I was impolite, but I woudn't be impolite if Mr. Grebenkov discuss the deletion. I just didn't like that my work was removed without any comments. I hope Mr. Grebenkov will be more friendly the next time if he likes to improve Wikipedia.

Mikolardos (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Mikolardos
 * Hi Mikolardos. Thanks for your comments on the AfD and here. A couple of responses to your comments there, in the order you placed them:
 * 1) Believing that it is used is not sufficient criteria for it to be included. For example, it may be used by Miranda would not be enough to justify inclusion! I'm not sure I agree with your statement Everyone who doesn't like Mircorosft's default crash reporting system uses CrashRpt, because there were no free alternatives. - there may have been a lot who used it, but not everyone, and realistically probably not even most. However, if this is the case, there should be some references (e.g. in programming journals like Dr Dobbs, etc) which would mention it.
 * 2) I agree that in an journal article, you reference previous works, etc - but the references you used basically said something along the lines of "TinyXML exists" - but without mentioning CrashRpt. We know TinyXML exists, and even if there was any doubt about it, an article about TinyXML would be the place for that to be proved, not for CrashRpt. I don't know why you guys in Wikipedia do not like references to non-Wikipedia stuff - we love references to non-Wikipedia stuff! However, the references need to show the notability of (in this case) CrashRpt, not of other software! The ideal sources are highly regarded newspapers (like the New York Times, the Guardian in the UK, etc) - however, that would not be realistic for a software library; or in this case either programming journals (an example would be Dr. Dobb's Journal (well, apart from the fact that they stopped publishing in February!) or perhaps Federal Computer Week, The Register, etc) or a Computer Science journal such as an ACM journal (e.g. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications) or an IEEE journal (e.g. IEEE Software). Alternatively, references in other academic journals would be good. The important thing is that the publication must be counted as a reliable source.
 * 3) I cannot comment on the Russian Wikipedia, or on Grebenkov's behaviour. I will say that when deleting articles, a proposal for deletion is an accepted first step - discussion could be initiated on the article's talk page, but normally it would be expected that other editors other than the proposer would start a discussion there - the PROD states why it was placed, so you have the proposer's initial statement. If an AfD is made (as in this case), the proposer states their initial arguments in the discussion in the nomination statement. Then it is up to other editors to place their comments in favour or against the AfD proposal. This is the way it has been in many of the discussions I've seen - it seems to be the accepted norm that the discussion is initiated by the proposal for deletion (whether by PROD or by AfD) and further discussion carries on from there.
 * Removing an article that does not meet the criteria for inclusion is improving! However, if the article is deleted, you may be able to request that it be moved to your user space for you to work on it some more. If you want to do this, let me know (if the AfD is closed with a delete decision), and I'll advise you on how to go about it! Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to userfy
Yes, please, advice me how to move it to my user space. Thanks. Mikolardos (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Mikolardos