User talk:EwokiWiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, SWsoft, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you.

A tag has been placed on SWsoft, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Coren 22:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SWsoft

Hey there.

Well, what I would recommend is that you create a little better fleshed out article in a subpage of yours first. This gives you plenty of opportunity to tweak things until it is properly sourced and notability is adequately covered.

Because of the large number of Evil Spammers from Heck(tm) infesting the new pages of Wikipedia, many editors on new page patrol will tend to CSD anything that looks like spam without giving it much chance to grow (and I would tend to be one of them). It's a little more work, but I'm sure you understand that with the number of people trying to use the 'pedia for search engine optimization and free advertising, we have to remain vigilant.

For what it's worth, most passing admins will see your {{hangon}} tag and give you time enough to tweak the page up (that is, after all, what it's for).

Happy editing! Coren 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I've removed the speedy deletion tag, since the article now no longer meets the requirements. Coren 00:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Care to join our WikiProject?

WikiProject University of Houston

Hello! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Houston, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Houston. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Brianreading 20:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You can just sign up on the Main project page, and you'll be a part of our project! You can see all the University of Houston articles in the. If there is ever anything that you feel should be added, do so! Check out our to do lists, and the suggested articles on the main project page. Let me know if there's anything you don't understand! Brianreading (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your request

What exactly is the issue? Is there a discussion on any of the talk pages that covers it so I can maybe evaluate it and make a recommendation if needed? There are three options to assist in edit wars, 1st: request protection until issues sorted out to avoid edit wars, 2nd: request a third opinion, 3rd: requests for comment.

You may reply here as I'll watch your talk page for a while. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


- Hi! Thank you very much for responding. I haven't brought it up on the discussion page or any other talk page because I want to make sure I'm on the right track first and, because I don't commonly disagree or argue with other people's changes, I'm not familiar with protocol or etiquette. The exact issue is mostly in the Performance section. This section is relies heavily on the test by CNET; however, when comparing the October 17th Revision by Echo95 to the current revision (08:24, 17 November 2007) by IP address 124.168.52.242:

"...in which Fusion demonstrated better performance than Parallels Desktop for Mac in SMP-aware applications." which seams fairly factual, was removed.

vs.

"...that demonstrated that Fusion holds a considerable performance advantage over Parallels Desktop for Mac in certain SMP-aware applications." which seams very Fusion-biased, was added.


Also: "Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal reported that although Parallels Desktop for Mac has more features, Fusion has a smaller impact on overall system performance.[1] " which is fair - one has more features while one has better performance - was removed.

vs.

"Some reviewers, such as Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal, have observed that Fusion has a noticeably smaller impact on overall system performance than Parallels Desktop." which seams Fusion-biased, was added.

Additionally, a section from the October 17, 2007 was deleted entirely: "It is worth noting that, as stated above in Features, Fusion does support SMP while Parallels Desktop for Mac does not. Also,per the article, CNET's CPU-intensive testing was best suited for multi-core processors; Fusion supports two cores while Parallels supports one. Average users are unlikely to notice a significant different when running average, day-to-day programs[2]." I'm a little confused at the removal of this paragraph. It's pretty much quoting the same CNET article and references the Wikipedia article's Feature Section, but it looks like the paragraph was deleted because it softens Fusion's advantage over Parallels Desktop for Mac. It also looks like one person seems to have made most of the changes over a couple of days.

I don't think these edits are unbiased, and I'd really appreciate any guidance, advice or help. Thanks! EwokiWiki (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The words like 'noticeably' are totally POV and should be removed, which I did. At any point you should re-add what you think is accurate. If it can be supported by fact then there's no reason it cannot be in Wikipedia so long as it's relevant to the article. I agree the subtle changes create a point of view tone, under the guideline of WP:BOLD you're completely entitled and encouraged to remove or limit the use of point of view language and conclusions to comply with Wikipedia's requirement of neutral point of view. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your help and your guidance. I now feel much better equipped to address this article and keep it neutral. EwokiWiki (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your edit today, and I was tempted to revert it. Add a source to that statement so that it is reverted by someone else as un-sourced POV material. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I went ahead and just deleted that paragraph. The reference is actually in CNET'sarticle itself, but it's at the end of the article, so readers may not notice and revert the change anyway. Thanks for pointing it out. Ciao! EwokiWiki (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)