User talk:Wwwolf3

Fair use rationale for Image:Sidux-gaia.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sidux-gaia.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of WikiProject Free Software and WikiProject Software

Greetings, I have made a proposal for the merger of WikiProject Free Software and WikiProject Software here. I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. -- Tyw7, Leading Innovations ‍ ‍‍ (Talk ● Contributions) 20:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wwwolf3. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests.
Message added 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to undeletion

It's very frustrating that communication with you and other supporters of a Foswiki article here does not work properly. I have tried to give good advice and got no reaction at all.

The English Wikipedia has a very low tolerance for arguments concerning other editors' presumed motivations. Incomplete information and misunderstandings make us form incorrect hypotheses about other editors all the time, and we must actively fight against that at all times. See WP:Assume good faith. The post with which you opened the deletion review is a massive breach of that principle and should be redacted.

While the notability criteria at the German Wikipedia are stricter for many topics, it seems to be the other way round for software:

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Software: "Für Software zählt vor allem die Qualität der Artikel. Aus diesen muss dann auch eine gewisse Wahrnehmung bzw. Verbreitung hervorgehen." I.e. the primary criterion is article quality, but sufficient importance / distribution needs to be asserted in the article.

Therefore what you need for a separate Foswiki article here is proof of significant media coverage.

Here is what I wrote on the AfD talk page. It is still relevant:

I don't understand why this article was deleted. If it contained any useful information at all (and from the comments here it looks like it did), it should have been merged into TWiki. Just because an open source project forks doesn't mean Wikipedia will treat the various branches in separate articles; in fact, we tend to discuss related topics together in a single article if that helps avoid duplication and aids understanding.

I guess that the AfD discussion became polarised because the participation of many new editors raised red flags with the AfD regulars, causing them to see this as a battle with evil forces from outside Wikipedia. And the new editors didn't understand our normal processes well enough to spot this way out, or felt it wasn't desirable.

I believe the following is the right way forward:

Since the fork happened recently, it's unlikely that notability of Foswiki can be established at this time. It may be best not to waste too much time on this now.
The bar for discussing Foswiki prominently in TWiki is much lower: You need to establish relevance of Foswiki for TWiki (nothing to do here as it is obvious), and you need reliable sources that discuss the split. Unless someone at the TWiki article tries to "defend" it against too much discussion of the split, this is unlikely to be under much scrutiny. Of course you shouldn't overdo it by hijacking the TWiki article and making Foswiki discussion more prominent there than discussion of TWiki.
An interested user should ask an admin to userfy the Foswiki article.
Then the Foswiki material can be added to TWiki. As part of this, the redlink Foswiki at the end of the lede will be replaced by Foswiki, indicating that "Foswiki" is an alternative name of the article.
Finally, Foswiki can be recreated as a redirect to TWiki. I believe (and if someone more experienced knows I am wrong, please correct me!) that that shouldn't cause any notability-related problems.

This outcome is actually better than keeping the Foswiki article would have been:

We are more likely to get input from both sides, and therefore neutral point of view, about the split if we have a single article for both projects.
Foswiki is best described in relation to TWiki. It doesn't make sense to have two articles each of which describes the features of the respective wiki. It's much better to treat the features common to both in a single article, and the to discuss the differences.
Once the TWiki article has become too big, or the projects too different, so that it no longer makes sense to treat both wikis in a single article, I am sure there will be enough reliable sources to fork the article.
All of this may mean that there will be no infobox for Foswiki. But I am confident that there will be workarounds for this and any similar problems.

Executive summary: The mistake was to think that the TWiki article must be forked merely because the TWiki project has forked. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Until Foswiki has enough coverage in reliable sources, both projects need to be discussed together under TWiki.

Ownership issues of TWiki: There seem to be ownership issues at TWiki. It should be easy to deal with them, since Peter Thoeny is the owner of the TWiki trademark and we have a conflict of interest guideline and a conflict of interest noticeboard for dealing with such cases.

Hans Adler 12:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is an awful idea. Read here, why that is so. [[1]] --Kalyxo (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]