User talk:Rszrama

Drupal
May I ask if you are connected to Drupal in some way. The page has had some people earlier who were editing the page in a way so that any negative information was removed, and you seem to do the same. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not an advertising service or a soapbox. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I screw something up here... I'm assuming this is the appropriate way to respond, but this is my first time receiving one of these. :) Basically, I am a Drupal user but not a core hacker or anything like that.  I do head up the Ubercart project which is a Drupal based e-commerce system.  I checked the page out on a whim and have seen that criticisms section in the past.  I certainly don't want to remove any criticism from the post, but you'd expect an encyclopedia to report on common or widely held criticisms... maybe even criticisms that have to do with the software itself and not the people using it or writing contributions for it.

The one I removed was the complaint of a user about a contributed module and its primary developer. While it is a module that gets a lot of use, it is not even a core Drupal module - i.e. it's not shipped with Drupal, and you don't need it to run a Drupal site. The complaint was about whether or not the module should provide a default which may seem sensible in most situations but doesn't cover them all. Given the limited nature of the complaint and the fact that it was about certain Drupal users and not Drupal itself, I didn't see why it should remain in the article. I'm not saying I agree with the attitude the person w/ the complaint received... but it just seemed like a cheap shot by someone who got the shaft from another coder. fwiw, I did read all the referenced threads before removing that section.

If this sort of change should be guided through the discussion tab on the article first, let me know and I'll be happy to comply w/ my future edits. (Just kind of reviewing the policies above, and it seems like the section would have been classified as original research anyways.)  --Rszrama (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for responding, all correct :-).
 * Thanks for the explanation. I am generally sceptic when people remove information without any form of discussion, and this page has a history of that kind (conflict-of-interest editing).  Good to have some specialist on the subject who is not involved, your edit is still there (not reverted), feel free to improve the page further!  If you feel confident things don't have to go through the talkpage.
 * Hope you're here to stay, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)