User talk:Marie Poise
Hi! You wrote this as the reason for the deletion of the page:
- (1) The software described here is not notable. (2) It's an unprofessional non-free project that has no chance to stand against free projects like LabPlot or QtiPlot. (3) This article is basically an advertisment.
I am the developer in MagicPlot. I agree with (1) and (3) and I don't want to discuss the deletion itself. I want to discuss the (2) sentence. Why did you wrote 'unprofessional' (did you tried the software or only the site?) and why do you thing that the non-free software from independent vendors 'has no chance to stand against free projects'? Look at Pixelmator for example. Electriq (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Electriq. Fine you agree with (1) and (3). According to WP policies, this means the article should be deleted. Let us therefore restore the deletion request.
- As for (2), I retract "unprofessional", and I apologize for the wording. What I wanted to say is: The project seems to be a one-man show. This one man may be a very brilliant and professional software developer, yet there is no institutional backing that the project is carried on if this single person looses interest.
- As for your final question: Pixelmator is Mac software. Maybe in the Mac and Windows world people are ready to pay for software without looking around for free replacement. In the Unix/Linux world, certainly not. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, I cannot argue against WP policies about notability. Moreover the article is not usable while it is isolated. But please don't write discriminatory reasons for deletion. I understand the lack of trust in small software vendors but I also remember how the big companies discontinue some products and technologies (discontinued JavaFX 1.0 is an example). I believe the article may be restored when some papers or articles citing MagicPlot appear.
- And about your last suggestion: I think WP is intended not only for Unix/Linux world. Open-source paradigm is great but I think it is not good to discriminate too much the little closed-source projects over against little open-source projects (I believe this talk will not grow in to holy war :) ). Electriq (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I fully agree with all you say. So I will put again the deletion mark, you may save the article in your private sandbox, and once MagicPlot has achieved notability you restore the article. -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit to RfC
[edit]You removed the PMID and BibCode from the example where it was intended to show ALL identifiers. What you mean to show is what is below, in the example where identifiers are omitted. It was specifically chosen to see the difference between the two. I have therefore reverted your edit to the initiating text of the RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)