User talk:Nuwewsco/Archiv2

DriveSentry
Talk to me!

I see you placed a banner at the top of the DriveSentry page.

The DriveSentry page has references, citations etc to many articles on topics raised on the page.

The page - although not perfect at first edit- has followed guidelines and acted on past feedback about page size and content to ensure it is relevant.

The page is of similar design and size to pages that refer to other companies.

A recent post (on the flash drive page) which was simply an additional feature in a list that included other product solutions -solutions that did not receive the same deletion edit as DriveSentry-, may have come across to some as an advertisement but was just a quick (with hind sight rather rough) inclusion to what seemed a relevant area.

Do you have any personal suggestions on General Notability?

Mike A Quinn (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking back at the page in question it seems like it's been overhauled quite dramatically (compare) since I last looked at it!
 * Previously it was obviously spam, but now it seems bit better and certainly more neutral, so I'm a happier with it now.
 * However, it does seem parently obvious that as DriveSentry's Director of Product Marketing, you do have a clear conflict of interest in editing this page - please could you add something to your user page to make this more obvious? Nuwewsco (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

FreeOTFE
Hi. I reverted your "open source" license change on FreeOTFE; the software has source code available, but this does not make it open source according to the definition. Feel free to comment in the article's talk page. Cheers Yoghurt (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please take another look at the Open Source Definition; I've put my change back in - I can't see anywhere that the FreeOTFE licence violates any of the 10 principles it describes? If I'm wrong - let me know! Nuwewsco (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. It seems like the license has changed recently. It now looks like it might be an open source license, although it is not approved by OSI. I've added a footnote stating that the license now is (probably) OSS. I'll also add this to the discussion thread. Thanks for noticing Yoghurt (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of DiskCryptor
An article that you have been involved in editing, DiskCryptor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles_for_deletion/DiskCryptor_(2nd_nomination). Thank you. BenFranske (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

TrueCrypt
I've noticed that many of your edits at TrueCrypt have been in violation of the no original research and verifiability policies. It seems to me that you have some sort of dispute with the creators of the product and are pushing your particular point of view. Please don't do this. --- RockMFR 22:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a pretty big assumption on your part (I don't even know the people who created Truecrypt!). Can you specify which edits in particular you think are objectionable?
 * The only edits that I've made to it recently are facts which are fully cited (i.e. I've given the sources which can be used to verify them, which is clearly not original research); the most recent change I made was to revert an edit involving a requirement to prove a negative, which isn't possible - whereas proving a positive should be trivial (if the relevant information is known) Nuwewsco (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)