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
Yes, I thought the article would be better in prose format, not just a list of features. I guess I'm just old fashioned about encyclopedias. To be honest, it looks like an advertisement since all the article focuses on is the the features of the program. MikeAllen10:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you did is pure vandalism. And no, the problem is from lack of source, not the style of writing. The article introduces the software product in proper way. All you need to is to add source. Fleet Command (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait! It doesn't lack source too! It just lacks footnotes. There are three good reviews cited in the article. They are valid secondary sources. Fleet Command (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for you MikeAllen, I don't know why you feel like that. The article describes the features from a neutral point of view. It does not use peacock terms or any other feature of the advertisement.
However, I think I can tone down the article's overly bold look. I won't make it completely prose but I think I can satisfy you.
Well I thought I was pretty clear. Listing only features looks like you're trying to sell the product. I don't know what the "software manual of style" guidelines look like on Wikipedia since I mostly edit film articles, but I'm sure this article does not meet that style. Where's the product history, the technology, the company that develops it, reviews for the program? You know real world details? This is equivalent of only writing plot summaries for film articles and not adding other details like the production and reception.
I remember when this article was created in November 2009 (I uploaded the first screenshot and logo); I didn't think it would last this long. I don't see any indication that it's notable. Also, I don't know how you figured this edit was vandalism. MikeAllen11:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, the article is notable because it meets the requirements of Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, meaning that it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary source; source such as PC Advisor magazine, CNET Editor's Review and LAPTOP magazine. If you don't think this article is notable, nominate it for deletion in WP:AFD; but I believe this article will survive your nomination.
Second, this article does not violate Wikipedia Manual of Style. If it does so prove it. Otherwise, keep your feeling to yourself: You don't own Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort in which pretty much everything works through consensus, not mere feelings.
Third, in my humble opinion, Ckatz edit is vandalism because it is ruinous; it destroys what can be fixed instead of destroying. Even if I am wrong, it is still a bold edit that I find controversial and hence I am still perfectly at liberty to undo it per WP:BRD. Therefore, your act of responding to my BRD revert with another revert is an instance of edit warring. You should learn to be civil and enter discussions instead of responding to other people's objections with the brute force of revert.
Last but not least, the article is now in prose form. I think your original objection is now fulfilled. Next time, if you felt an article has problems, instead of destroying it, stand aside and let other people fix it.
No one destroyed anything and no one ever said they own Wikipedia. Keep your paranoid thoughts to yourself and assume good faith instead of thinking everyone is out to "destroy" articles you like. Oh and by the way, the article is now worst than it was before. Are there any reliable sources for this program? If so, it would great if they were somehow migrated into the article. This article has been unsourced for one year and I doubt it would survived an AFD, unless someone there finds reliable sources and actually add them in the article. MikeAllen12:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't assume in the face of evidences – be it good faith or bad faith. It's time you actually read WP:AGF. Second, article already has reliable sources; it just doesn't have footnotes, which is not mandatory. In time, you might want to know that since the notability of the article is established, Primary sources are also acceptable for feature description parts.
Actually, you're presuming a lot here, not the least of which was the totally-over-the-top and completely inappropriate/nonsense claims of "vandalism", which do nothing but poison the discussion. This is not a space for advertising, nor do we use excessive lists of features that resemble a corporate promotion more than they do an encyclopaedia article. This page still needs heavy copy-editing, to weed out non-encyclopaedic excess and also to clean up a long list of grammatical errors that you have now introduced. --Ckatzchatspy18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see: WP:VANDALISM defines vandalism and considers content removal and disruption of integrity as an instance of it. This edit closely resembles the definition. So, as you see, I'm not assuming anything. If I'm wrong, tell me where; but don't say I'm assuming bad faith. There is of course a better alternative: We both forget that edit, focus on the article and is problem and start improving this thing.
As for this article being advertisements, there is a distinction between advertising something and neutrally describing something. Let's talk about it. Fleet Command (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it's offensive that you're talking to me like I just registered yesterday. Of course footnotes are not "mandatory", this isn't an encyclopedic article you're creating. This is something you would expect to see on the Feature page. MikeAllen21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you had registered yesterday, I'd have been very polite with you and I'd have sympathized with you; I do not bite newcomers. (Not that I am biting you now; but I am not sympathizing either.)
Second, stop using vague words like "Encyclopedic"; cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline to support your statement because I don't see anything wrong with the article besides its potential for improvements.
Third, you confessed that you write film articles; most film articles in Wikipedia are chiefly made up of a "Plot" section and a "Characters" which cites no source. Now, you come here and contest an article because it chiefly describes its subject? You contest the contents that resemble what you yourself make? Strange.
You've been here since 2006 and you do not know that you can not use primary sources (TuneUp's website) as a citation? Um, what do you mean the word "encyclopedic" is vague? This is Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. This article offers nothing different or new than the software's website. Hell even the website itself lists all the reviews! I think you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for and not for. I'm taking this to AFD. Oh and yes.. good film articles just talk about plot and characters. Right..—MikeAllen06:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What primary source are you talking about? The article is using reliable secondary sources. I think its time you stopped whining and instead help this guy improve the article. 80.191.138.129 (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref one and two is from the TuneUp website. I'm not whining, I'm voicing my concern. Sure don't see you helping out. Thank you. —MikeAllen12:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on contributions and language, there is a possibility that the IP is FleetCommand. If so, please note that using an IP to "add to the vote" is not permitted. --Ckatzchatspy18:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not I. But I do have a fairly good idea who he is. (Possibly a colleague who wanted to help out. That is obvious from his sentimentalism.)
Anyway, I do know that there is primary sources in the article and I have already stated that they are perfectly ALLOWED: Citation one is reinforced by citation three and hence valid. Citation two is only used for application version number because it is the software download page. The public consensus in Wikipedia is that such use is correct. See this:
“
A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
Please avoid making presumptions as to intent. I'm still amazed that you would choose to describe the conversion to prose with the ludicrous accusation of "vandalism", and then go on to rewrite the article in a manner that is fundamentally flawed and full of grammatical errors. --Ckatzchatspy03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you are making it; I just said don't! Now, who is not assuming good faith? Me or you? And you STILL have not produced a discussion that you are expected to produce in defense of your contribution.
And as for grammatical errors, nobody nominates an article for deletion because it has grammatical errors. Go ahead and fix the grammar, I don't mind. As for vandalism, I already told you that your contribution to the article closely matched the definition given by WP:VANDALISM and told you the solution. Yet you keep reminding it. Now, who is not focusing on the problem and is trying to poison the discussion?
Do I need to remind you guys that the contents of this discussion is completely irrelevant to its topic? Instead of nitpicking on me and the article, violating my privacy and producing flawed discussions about notability, reliability of source and verifiability, please focus on the problem at hand and produces the discussion that you STILL have not produced: What constitutes the difference between a detailed NPOV article and an advertising one? Fleet Command (talk) 06:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get back to the topic of this discussion. In the meanwhile, I have tried to improve the article by making it more neutral, adding several references, introducing a version history as suggested by User:MikeAllen and fixing some errors. Do you think that the main problems outlined in this section have been solved now, or does the article still need any substantial improvements in these areas? If you also feel that the problems have been solved by the recent edits, I would go ahead and remove the "advert" and "copyedit" issue tags. JMetzler (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts. I think the version history - while a good start - will need to be trimmed significantly; again, we need to present this as an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject, not as a product history or features list. The latter half of the features list needs the same thorough trimming as well. --Ckatzchatspy17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response. Do you have any examples of well written encyclopaedic software version histories? I'd like to improve my skills and the article, but I already tried to keep the descriptions rather short and cannot imagine how they could be shortened even more while still touching upon the most relevant changes. JMetzler (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Firefox was once an FA! That's a good example. But I don't think you'll need to cut down on anything. If you have source for it and you are neutral about it, then why cut it down? Fleet Command (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, as to the length of the section. Opera (web browser) is a Featured Article right now. Not much length in history section -- just like Microsoft Security Essentials. Now, Norton Internet Security and Norton 360 are Good Articles. Just look at the length of that history section... It's long! Now, Linux, Windows Mobile and Mac OS X are also Good Articles with long history sections, but they are highly notable, so that's natural isn't it? Not really. If you look at all of them, you find one pattern: The history section size is appropriate to the amount reliable secondary sources available. So, if you have source, help yourself.
Many thanks for your comprehensive answers and the links to good articles, FleetCommand! I will follow your suggestion then and not cut down the version history. I have a lot of secondary sources for it - actually it was quite a bit of work to collect all the information yesterday and today. The sources should still be in my browser history, so I will add them to the respective paragraphs within the next 24 hours. Thanks again for the replies. JMetzler (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a pass, then, as it is too long. The aforementioned articles don't really count as comparable; I highly doubt anyone here would think to argue that this utility program is anywhere near as notable as the Norton, Apple and Microsoft products. --Ckatzchatspy20:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, of course I don't want to invest a lot of effort adding all the sources when somebody else then removes all the content again. I understand your point, Ckatz, so could you probably give me links to any articles that have well written encyclopaedic software version histories which you find more comparable? JMetzler (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I still don't get it, Ckatz. You insist on putting advertisement tag on the article while you adamantly refuse to highlight the advertisement areas as well as instances of boastful comments on the article. When only I was editing, I could have probably assumed that the Features section is the problem. But now that JMetzler has copy-edited that section, you still refrain to remove the problem tags? Are you aware that tags are not supposed to be badges of shame? And by the way, will you please do us all a favor and answer this 11-days-long unanswered question? "What constitutes the difference between a detailed/comprehensive article and an advertising one?" Fleet Command (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my recent edit I tried to significantly shorten the article now. I noticed that a lot of supposedly good software articles only have a version history and no list of features at all, so I completely removed the "Features" section. The most relevant additions over the years can be found in the version history anyway. What do you think? Could I finally solve the article issues now or are there any sections left that still need significant editing and still justify the "multiple issues" template? JMetzler (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say not good. Comprehensiveness is a requirement for an article to become a featured article. (Opera, a featured article does have this section.) You have sources for them and so far no one has registered a logical objection to the presence of this section. So, why delete it?
Yes, Ckatz has expressed concern that this article is written like an advertisement but even he has not objected this section. To be accurate, he has adamantly refused to specify which part, let alone producing a valid argument as the instances of boastful statements. (He had 12 days to do so.) So, in case you are acting in that regard, I think you should reconsider your decision.
The correct way to do this, in my humble opinion, is to bring more input to this article by contacting the project. I will see to it.
I just added some info about this product but for some reason it's not appearing on my watchlist or do your own changes appear in your own watchlist? I am running Windows XP 32 bit Professional using the Opera Web Browser. Can you help me on my Glary Utilities article? Anish9807 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have made an edit on 3 January 2011 which appeared on my watchlist. If it is not appearing on your watchlist, then check you Wikipedia preferences. Also, when you visit the article, make sure that star icon next to your "History" (top, right of the screen) is blue; that means you are watching this page. For more information, visit Help:Watching pages. Fleet Command (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
One little minor thing listed below
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Sourcing: Is there a second opinon/review of "The author asserts that while disabled programs continue to consume disk space, they no longer affect startup time, shutdown time and system performance."?
Fixed Explanation: "The most notable feature is Windows Aero themes and visual effects." What does it do, what's notable about it?
✗Not done Chart: Maybe a separate "Supported operating systems" chart indicating which versions are compatible with which versions of windows specifically.
Such a chart requires sources. A lot of it. I don't know any. However, one can safely assume that the supported operating systems are all compatible. Please advise in Comments section. Fleet Command (talk)
Fixed Time objective wording: "now displays editorial rating" The 'now' is not now.
Fixed Elaborate: With new modules, would be good to have some explanation on them. Otherwise it's just an update of new features which is not within NOTCATALOG #6.
Same as Elaborate new componets. I see that you list of the different functions, but let me play computer idiot, my first question is what the hell does this preformance optimizer do? does it clean out my hardware, software etc. It's like saying firefox is a web browser back in the '90s. People would probally be like what is a web browser. -- DQ (t) (e)01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'll get to it. Just list everything that you think I missed and needs to be elaborated. Since you didn't object, I assuming that you have no problem with the Development section, since every component in referred there is already explain in the Features section. Fleet Command (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"TuneUp Drive Defrag and TuneUp Repair Wizard" & "TuneUp Disk Doctor[16] and TuneUp Disk Space Explorer" + 1 more in 2004 still left unexplained. (I could be blind, please point them out if you did already) -- DQ (t) (e)00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, you are not "blind". But are you sure you have paid attention to these:
"The Fix problems section provides access to TuneUp Repair Wizard which allows users to selectively repair problems that TuneUp Utilities cannot automatically detect."
"It also gives access to TuneUp Disk Space Explorer (a disk space analyzer)..."
"Other items include a graphical replacement for Windows CHKDSK, ..."
Right now, I am clarifying TuneUp Drive Defrag and TuneUp Disk Doctor a bit. But please let me get this straight: Do you want me to repeat what I said in Features section once more in Development section? (Redundancy?) I can do that. Just say the word. Fleet Command (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is another part I just added:
Also in this category, there is TuneUp Disk Doctor. It can check the integrity of files stored on hard disk drives and salvage damaged files. It can also scan for physical defects known as bad sectors and isolate them. TuneUp Disk Doctor is a graphical replacement for Windows CHKDSK.
And a modified part:
Incorporates two more components: TuneUp Drive Defrag (the defragmentation tool) and TuneUp Repair Wizard (the troubleshooting tool).
Sourcing: All reviews (cited in the article) seem to have taken notice of Program Deactivator. But they are just repeating author's assertion. Do you think I can safely assume that they are confirming it? Fleet Command (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I think that's a bit of original research, I would prefer it be verified by someone. Even if it's just a screenshot or in the documentation provided for the software. -- DQ (t) (e)01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Module names like Performance Optimizer are written in initial capitals. Are you sure module names are NOT proper nouns? Currently in Wikipedia, "Window" or "Microsoft Windows" are proper nouns, though I do know that we write "the Microsoft Windows operating system" because of "operating system". Fleet Command (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft is not an adjective, it's part of the proper noun and is trademarked (or whatever the word I am looking for is). Performance describes what kind of optimizer your using and is not trademarked. Also many programs have Performance Optimizers, it's not a unique thing like Microsoft Windows. -- DQ (t) (e)01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate new components' functionality: I have moved these explanations to feature review section after the previous GA reviewer asked me to do so. What do you advise? Fleet Command (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FleetCommand made some changes based on his interpretation of the recommendations above. They did not appear to be entirely beneficial or appropriate, so I attempted to rework them However, FC has repeatedly restored them with accusations of "edit warring"; I'm not willing to engage in such games over such a trivial matter, so I'll leave it up to the assessor to render judgement. --04:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckatz (talk • contribs)
I have to agree with Ckatz for the first part of the revert. FC w/ the second. This is not an edit war, and I'm glad the reverting stopped. One last comment before passing above. -- DQ (t) (e)00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ive been a tuneup utilities user for several years and i havennt encounter problems like u did... i havent upgraded yet to avg pc tuneup cuz im fine and satisfied with Tune Up Uutilities 2014. No yahoo search bar engine change sort of thing happened to me. what version have u installed? zlouiemark[ T ] [ C ] 12:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to present only positive points about the product.
But a Web search shows that some people have experienced negative results from running the product, particularly the registry cleaner feature, in various releases of the product.
The published reviews do not mention problems. They don't mention corruption of icons, new popup ads, BSODs, inability to run programs, or the other problems reported in a few places.
Changing the Windows Registry is dangerous. It is full of indirection chains of UIDs and pathnames, without any protection by redundancy or other mechanisms. No registry cleaner can be tested fully, on every possible configuration of customization, applications, and settings. The lack of any balance in this article, any source of unbiased and exhaustive testing for any version of this product, raises in my mind a concern that the article might encourage the use of registry cleaning, which reviewers report as dangerous, by this particular product. Consumers might feel that the product is completely safe in spite of no evidence showing this.
Once a Registry or other parts of Windows get corrupted, recovery may or may not be possible. The Web has many reports of people searching desperately for help, and being forced to re-install Windows itself (for various versions of Windows). Not mentioning even the possibility of such potential disasters seems misleading to me, and WP should never mislead.
The latest release of AVG PC TuneUp has a different set of features for which we have no references, reviews, documentation. However, the feature set is very different from what's on the wiki page. Can we do something to make the page accurate given that we don't have sources? Empey at Avast (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Charlotte Empey and I work for Avast, which now owns AVG.
I made numerous copy edits and other non-controversial changes. However, there are two changes that are more substantial and/or controversial I was hoping an independent editor would consider making:
Most of the Features section is no longer accurate, because PC Tuneup was completely revamped without any media fanfare. Based on @Newslinger:'s feedback at RSN, I suggest a short, accurate replacement based on the website (since no third-party sources are available).
In the critical reception section, there is one bold, editorialized, and unsourced claim in the first sentence I'd like to ask be deleted and one clarifying sentence I'd like to request be added.
That claim in the 'Critical reception' section was added by an IP in this edit in 2013 and that was and has been their only edit to Wikipedia. Removed as unsourced. I have no opinion on your other suggestions; I'll leave that for somebody else more familiar with this topic. --Geniac (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Passed -- DQ (t) (e) 12:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Fixed Minor: Modules should be prefixed with "the" as they are an object and not a proper noun by themselves.