User talk:Mouagip

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Mouagip, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Annotation
re this, nothing there is independent. All these are associated with the de eloping labs. Has this tool been used independent from that? Any reviews, any other organisations that are not affiliated with them, etc. The list as it stands is a list without control, anything from university projects to hobby projects to major software packs is there, without any reference that shows what is worth mentioning or not. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ''Thanks for taking your time to review the changes. Regarding your comment, this is how it works in academia, I guess. The tool was developed for a special purpose in a research project, so mostly people associated with the research project have used it and written about it so far (you can find more references here). Since the tool is not very old, it has no wider adoption or more articles talking about it, yet. As I understand it, the "references" column should be used for proof that the tool actually is what the description promises. In academia, a published research article is a legit reference for that purpose. If that's not the purpose of the references column, I don't understand what it's for. Mouagip (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No independent sources = no-one in the outside world knows oris interested in the tool. I am reverting again.  That list is full of material that has no independent sourcing or use.  Wikipedia is not a collection of pet projects.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * See also the concern expressed in the header. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ''The tool is referenced and has been used in several research papers, among them "independent" ones as you call it [1, 2]. Furthermore, the tool is used by several research institutes for scientific work (e.g. [3 ], [4 ]). Just because there are no newspaper articles about it doesn't mean that nobody is interested in it. Calling it a "pet project" can only be taken as an insult. Most of the other tools on that list have no references at all. If your requirements for that list are this high, you can just as well delete the entire list. If not, the tool has more right to be on the list than most other entries. Mouagip (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)