Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Members

Suggestion
How about a "Area of Expertise" column in the table? So that members can be easily identified & summoned for a page to create/edit/enhance or to solve out specific problems. Also, members with expertise of using advance wiki Templates & formatting are better to be identified too.
 * OK. Sounds good. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Replaced Task with area of expertise. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mail from Mclaudt : Wikipedia e-mail Please, save OpenSource! Need help!
Regarding this mail of WP:WPFS member user:Mclaudt, these debates & his banned account - one thing is clear, that  something is fishy. I'm just forwarding this whole lot for all the Wiki editors to see & go through it, if they care. I have been a bit busy lately, so wasn't active & am not still, so cant decide to take some other major  steps, if any senior member would like to consider about what the whole  thing is been cooking then it'd be very appreciable.

Here's the content of the mail -

''Dear Free and Open Source Software enthusiasts!

Several incompetent deletionists now decide the fate of articles about Dwm, Qvwm, Wmii and other popular FOSS projects. They ignore arguments about notability, and trend to their own interpretation of WP:N, ignoring articles in magazines and overall  popularity of this software in community. They deleted a lot of opinions of linux community members with arguments and prooflinks of about 11  accounts, under baseless "Meatpuppets" therm.

Please, Opensource need your opinion and activity!

>>>>(sic!)>>>> first Dwm discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm second DWM discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwm_(2nd_nomination)

first QVWM discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QVWM first Wmii discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wmii first Evilwm discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evilwm

Please keep in mind that major activist for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Psychonaut This is a pervert that has a hobby to destroy other people's work using his status. You can see troll's bravadoes on his user page.

Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for  complete consistency of WP:N. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software&oldid=346257209 (Current version is changed by psyhonaut.)

We think that Wikipedia should have its own guideline about notability of FOSS (as it has for people, movies, firms etc). Due to its opensource and enthusiastic nature, FOSS have a high verifiability and a lack of  commerce interest. But now each program, popular in blogs, forums, howtos, distro's wiki etc. doesn't have notability cause now all that  sources do not meet "reliable source" criterion. FOSS popularity lives in the world of 0 and 1 and has no need to be proven on paper in the age  of Internet. Also it has giant verifiability due to open source, so there is no need to insist on classical representation of reliable  source as some glossy magazine.

Wikipedia and FOSS always were together,they are based on common Idea, and the last tendency of idiotic deletionism towards FOSS enthusiasts is  very strange and sad fact.

This situation has already gained resonance in some blogs:

http://www.nullamatix.com/dwm-on-wikipedia-marked-for-deletion/ http://jasonwryan.com/post/409379904/wikipedia http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1002/index.html

Spreading this information strongly accosted!

Linux community users.''

--– Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the text of the e-mail. The canvassing is currently being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)