Talk:JuffEd

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software.

I do not understand how should I change the article to get rid of "notable" and "coi" labels. I tried to keep absulutely neutral tone and provided only basic information without any elements of advertising. Of course I can provide more links and other information, but in this case you can consider it like advertising and mark it as "coi" again. Mezomish (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, read the topics that the templates point to Tedickey (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I've read them, that's why I'm asking. Is it good enough now? Mezomish (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't just listing the (self-published) SourceForge and QtApps.org - it's notice by other people that counts, e.g., people commenting on the topic (in a form that can be cited reliably). That's what the various editors will be looking for Tedickey (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sketchy google search gave me [1], [2], [3] Mezomish (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, it looks like a listing of available programs without discussion. The other two are postings by someone named Miga. Tedickey (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG.... [4]? [5]? [6]? How many links will be enough? Mezomish (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell what the Russian links are saying (they might be just like the first one you showed). Getting a program listed in someplace like Freshmeat is easy, getting people to comment on it in a citable form is much harder. Tedickey (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least you can see that there are discussions there (as you wished at your previous message). Anyway, I randomly clicked at some unfamillar (for me) text editors at List_of_text_editors and found out something like BBEdit_Lite, Yudit, NEdit, Leafpad (just several examples, I'm sure that there are more of them of this kind). There are also no any "valuable references" on those pages, what are the differences between them and JuffEd? I'm just surprised with this inconsistency.... Mezomish (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes - offhand I know that yudit and nedit are relatively simple to find comments about, but that some others may not be. But that's a different set of topics. Let's see if you (or some interested persons) will improve this topic. Tedickey (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and COI

I've removed the tags, as the conflict of interest is no longer apparent in the text, and a quick Google search [7] shows that there are plenty of sources available for this article, they just need to be located and placed on the article.

COI tags should only be kept as long as the text is not neutral. Notability tags should be removed once notability is established, or taken to AfD if it is not. BradV 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If you chose to do the work of establishing notability, it would be apparent that aside from package descriptions (and the usual network propagation and proliferation of copies of rpm's), there appears to be only 1-2 blog-style comments (and the author of JuffEd is apparently a participant there as well). Tedickey (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]