Talk:TextPad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm .. I created this as it was linked from a wikipedia tip-of-the-day, but have to admit it does read like an advert. Please improve! TB 10:44, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not that bad...G1ggy 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A message for David Gerard

Two days ago you reverted four edits I made to the Emacs, XEmacs, vim and TextPad pages (all in the editors category). Your explanation was that I was "spamming". You then proceeded to ban my IP for two days.

What I posted was a link to a page on my website where I have a listing of most known code editors for Windows of all types. Open source, commercial, shareware, etc. I only edited the "Related links" section; except in the case of this TextPad article, which I actually filled out with (what I think) was relevant information and removed the stub notice. What exactly about that edit offended you again?

Now, "spamming" entails some sort of gain. I'd like you to explain just what exactly I'm gaining by posting that link. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the ads or pop-ups on my web site. Maybe you found some sort of advertising for an editor product there?

Did you even bother to visit the link? Do you know what it contains? I posted it because I think it is a useful resource for Windows developers. You do realize that developers read these pages? Could it be that a listing of almost 400 code editing-related tools might be on topic for these editor articles? Or are you offended by the fact that most of them are intended for Windows developers? Or maybe you're just uncomfortable because of my relationship with Microsoft?

Given that you've essentially abused your all-mighty "editor powers" I'd like you to explain your rationale for removing my edits (and banning me) or stop trying to play god.

[response copied from User talk:David Gerard]

You put a lot of links to your personal site on lots of barely-relevant articles, and you don't think this is spamming? - David Gerard 22:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spamming need not imply financial gain, direct or indirect. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Barely relevant"?? Are you kidding me? What if it is my "personal site"? Jeez. OK then restore my edit to the TextPad page (minus the link) and leave my link on the Text editor topic. Would that be "barely relevent" enough for you?

Putting links to one's own site at all is looked at askance, in accordance with the principles outlined at Wikipedia:Auto-biography; it's really not the done thing at all.

If your site is really of encyclopaedic levels of relevance, someone else will put it on the articles. If they don't, you may have to cope with the fact that it isn't. If you put a link to your own site, it'll likely get blanked as vanity-posting at best and spamming at worst. Wikipedia is not dMoz. - David Gerard 22:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory, yet most pages have a "Relevant links" section with outside links - check. "Spamming" is whatever Wikipedia decides it happens to be, like "Fennec" so helpfully pointed out - check. A link is relevant and on topic only if someone other than the owner of the link posts it, otherwise it's "vanity" although I fail to see what I'm gaining here - check. That makes a lot of sense, and I understand everything now. Boy, was I wrong. Thanks for your time. I especially enjoyed you nuking everything I wrote for the TextPad article, which was so obvously invalidated by the one link. Oh, and I'll try to remember the term "encyclopaedic levels of relevance". That's a winner.

Nothing whines like a spammer - David Gerard 00:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ROFL. Nothing like a bored technorati "telling it like it is". Thanks ever so much.