User talk:Haakon - Knowledge (XXG)

449:

repeatedly asked you to be specific as to exactly what requirements were in lacking and you have repeatedly just referenced the wiki guide. Surely you have some evidence to justify your actions. If wikipedia is not a place for a comparison list of software products and descriptions of each that is fine, but treat each one equally. The so called 'community' did not form a consensus. The discussion page was a farce of a few random people saying the page looked a bit like an advertisement or did not have a lot of merit for its existence. During its few days of existence hundreds of people visited the page and made use of the comparison table. I added the page in the first place because the product was so obviously lacking from the list despite independent reviews, years of development and hundreds of active users and supporters. I realize you posted your deletion request while I was in the middle of writing the article (hence the TODOs), not waiting until the full page was complete. You made no effort to voice support for my and other peoples efforts to resolve the initial inadequacies nor did you or any person in the discussion make a specific claim against the article.

22: 1814: 2069: 1452: 1920: 1737: 1672: 1558: 1994: 965:. Download managers are a bit of a niche topic. While I would agree that a list of "Famous Programmers" should be restricted to notable people, I believe that the download managers list should be pegged to a somewhat more relaxed standard. My suggestion would be "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" in 1284:. Your comment stated that it was a company employee who made the edits. The template suggests that there will be a discussion about this on the talk page, but you didn't start a discussion there, particularly nothing to back your accusation that the editor is a company employee. Would you mind filling-in some details? -- 119:

the page, it should atleast sit there for a little while to allow enthusiasts to complete the entry. I have just started using the product and it is quite good, but I did not find it quickly becuase there was no wiki entry, hence my actions. Please comment to let me know what you make of the whole deal.

1062:

insects that track bugs. See their spiked forelegs!? Predators hunting bugs. In the version you reverted the idea is lost again, in fact in this version the information appears a bit unhelpful to me. Maybe you could have edited out the "random" or "unhelpful" part of the information I added and leave

754:

I was looking for info comparing VCS, and saw the conspicuous absence of AccuRev. The history showed you recently deleted it saying "Removing non-notables (as in products without their own Knowledge (XXG) articles))". I disagree that AccuRev is non-notable. It certainly does have its own Knowledge

262:

Hi Haakon. I am confused. None of the comments made about the page are technically incorrect, we do see it as an excellent medium to push traffic to our site, so it could be considered advertising. However I am at a loss as to how 50% of Knowledge (XXG) has not also been deleted. As a bi-product of

118:

Since that table had no valid link, I quickly added a page. I am not the creator of the product so I posted in the products forum requesting that the creator or other more knowledgable person could edit the page to finish it and fix any mistakes I made. So even if there is legitimate reason to delete

1060:

Hi, you reverted information that was supposed to clarify that "Mantis" itself is the one tracking and catching bugs. That's why I added that information. Yes, Mantidae are bugs themselves, but the intelligent part of the naming (in my view) is, that Mantidae are lurking for bugs, you see? A program

908:

Can Aria2 (actually Aria2c) be added back along with a footnote reference for instance? I agree that it would be ideal for it to have it's own article, but I believe that policy, in this case, tends to unfairly discriminate against Open Source projects. While a popular commercial product will have

904:

Here is my dilemma - I do not know enough about Aria2 to write a definitive article on it, but it is a reasonably well established and useful tool. IMHO, it is conspicuously missing from the comparison page. In fact, when I didn't see it in the list, it cast doubt on the usefulness of the page. I

855:

I have noticed you have removed a non-link reference to Jouzz.com that I have included in the vendor enumeration of the Enterprise Social Software article. To verify that this is a real company that provides a real product (Jouzz) in the Enterprise Social Software category, I invite you to visit the

266:

Notability is difficult to establish, so we havent got a huge amount of press or 3rd party references, but so what. Our registered users in Mexico, Canada, the US, and across Denmark, Spain, the UK and Northern Ireland are all happy with their usage of our software. That the Knowledge (XXG) Editors

510:

Ok, I'm accepting that you were only trying to do the right thing in your opinion. I will ask you 2 more questions. 1) Why were the links to 3rd party independent reviews/articles not considered 'significant coverage'? They were of course added later, but well within the controversy period. 2) Why

479:

that do not comply with this, but personally I am just one single person and I don't have the capacity to go through the millions of articles on Knowledge (XXG) all on my own. Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress and is not internally consistent yet. If you think the closing administrator made the

991:

Please raise this on the article's talk page, since it's not up to me alone :-) I disagree that "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" applies here; there are probably literally thousands of download managers in the world, and the list would be neither short

929:

I'm afraid my stance on this is "rules are rules". As a free software fan myself, I lament the fact that it's harder for small free software projects to gain notability, but Knowledge (XXG) is here to cover notable subjects, not to make the subjects notable. That said, if you can find at least one

402:

should be deleted along with their individual pages. Exactly what personal problem do you have with the BugNET application or its authors? Since every single article in that table breaches the standard with which you judged the page I initiated, I'm looking forward to hearing your justification. I

1036:

the AfD is closed, if the result is to delete. Doing it before would break the process. However, I'm not an admin and I'm not familiar with what is usually done in these cases. Pages are moved by selecting "Move" from the top menu (right next to the search field in the new theme), but you have to

591:

You may be correct that the list was not reliable enough. I have found 3 3rd party references but they are not exactly New York Times reputations. Rather than a immediate deletion motion, a orange tag requesting better references would have been preferred. I notice other similar articles carry

307:

Interesting reference thanks, but two blocks further down, it states under the heading "Notability is not temporary" ... "a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage."... We must have had

228:

article in the past. I work for the company that produces the software and have also worked on the article. I have been learning more about Knowledge (XXG) so that we may have a page there that is informative and objective. I have posted a proposed rewrite for the article in my user space which I

113:

which goes to the homepage for the free software product. That page links to FAQ, Documentation, Features, Download, Forum which explains the product in detail. A google search will show it is a legitimate FOSS offering with plenty of history and every reason to appear in wiki. The main reason I

448:

By 'start and conclude' I meant that you initiated the motion for deletion (start) and you deleted the comparison table entries (conclude). The final article met or exceeded the requirements of notability and it did so at least to the extent of the other items in the comparison table. I have

1932:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1254:

and you removed the reference added by a different user. I understand that at that time there was no Plastic SCM article, but is it ok to add it back in now that there is an article for Plastic SCM? I don't want to re-add something that was reverted without discussing it. Thanks!

270:

Comments were made when the page was first launched by several editors, these were dealt with through improvements to the page. Since then we have had a very stable few months and have not actively managed the pageas we were happy with its content and had nothing further to add.

1207:

tag where they were actually referenced. Is it acceptable to use references to a company's own website for actual linked references that point to where information is shown on the company's site? Just FYI, I don't work for them, but do use the software. Thanks for your help.

263:

our page being removed, we have also been removed from the page referenced Comparison_of_project_management_software and yet the other 75+ references on that page, all still have their Knowledge (XXG) pages present, even though one of them has been marked as "defunct".

515:? I would like to restore it. If it is solely due to the fact that there is not linked article, well we both know why that is the case. Would you remove Bing from a list of search engines because it is not as popular as Google and not as old? (rhetorical question) 83:

Your nomination of this page which did not satisfy wikipedia's criteria based on "not noteworthy" was successful in killing information about this tool. But why stop there? There's a bunch more tools similiar which are far less noteworthy listed on this page:

952:

Thank you for your response and the link to the policies - it is very helpful. My question really becomes whether the list should be only of "notable" download managers. I note that you changed the list from "various" to "notable" about 7 months ago (Diff -

308:

adequate notability references when the article was first published as this was accepted at the time, this point indicates that the coverage does not need to be ongoing, so I am still at a loss. There will be more articles in the future, we are sure.

856:

www.jouzz.com website. Also, please feel free to send me any questions that you may have about it. Since I was planning to write a brief and objective article about the Jouzz product, I look forward to your response. Many thanks in advance. Sincerely,

1749:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

1684:

1227:

as far as possible. A link to the company website is of course no problem and is encouraged, but in my opinion, deep-linking to the company's own promotional resources is rarely appropriate. I hope this helps, and let me know if can help in any way.

1478:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

361:

Before I request a Temporary Undelete so that we can retrieve the content, and a Deletion Review, process dictates that I ask you to reconsider the deletion... If we need to modify the article in someway, then we can do so if this will help.

969:. Would this be an appropriate topic for the article's talk page, or was your change part of a larger effort - perhaps a directive from one of the cleanup projects? Does an opportunity exist to build consensus on the scope of the list? 755:(XXG) article, and I thought it was a fairly well known commercial solution. We use it on my current project, and it's a great, mature tool. I would appreciate it if you put it back or provided better justification for removing it. 934:, I would recommend that you create the article. It doesn't have to be much more than a couple of sentences (+ the references), and don't worry about writing well; we'll take care of that over time :-) Hope this helps a little. 377:

It was the clear consensus of our community to delete the article. It's not up to me to reconsider the deletion. You can possibly ask the deleting admin to recover the article into your own user space, where you can work on it.

1341:

Please tell me what is exactly lacking in my article that you've nominated it for deletion. I've not finished the article completely and I'm still gathering references. What points of notability this article has not met ?

88:

including Test Complete. Tried my best to provide inciteful article about an easy-to-use script recording tool for GUI testing that's been around since early 1990's, but sometimes good isn't good enough apparently.

1151:

95% the references cited are to external sources (valid IT news and info sites). It contains no descriptive information that is unsubstantiated or any marketing material. Please let me know why it is tagged as such?

1960: 1777: 1712: 1482:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

1177:

The conflict of interest notice does not imply that there is unsubstantiated material in the article. It points out that someone with a conflict of interest has edited the article, which is a problem. Please see

1063:

the clarification in? I know, that's more work than just reverting, but obviously I couldn't keep it brief enough, but still I believe that this bit of information would enhance the name section in that article.

1518:. 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 1016:

Hakkon, I noticed that you had nominated my article, CyaSSL, for deletion. I was wondering if you could move it back into my user space so that I may edit further, or instruct me on how to do so? Thank You.

108:

Hi Haakon, I am not sure what is wrong with my newly added page for BugNET. You suggest BugNET has no information except for a URL that leads to a blog which also has no information. I provided the link:

229:

believe is a general improvement over the article you commented on. I hope this version addresses the concerns in the tags at the top of the page. Please take a look if you have a moment. (See link at

1944:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1761:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1696:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 873:

The issue is not whether your company or product is real, but that entries to products without their own Knowledge (XXG) articles should not be included. This is to keep non-notable entries out. See

680: 2085: 992:

nor complete, and would be extremely unmanageable due to spam. Lists all over Knowledge (XXG) are restricted to notable (as in having Knowledge (XXG) articles) entries for this reason.

709:

When I logged in this morning, it said 'This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it.' so I added relevant pages, was this not the right thing to do? please advise

1319:

Hi Haakon, I don't understand why you have nominated the article for deletion. As of the notability signs, there are several. You can find it on the existing article on wikipedia :

2009: 339: 1475: 1612: 1585:

requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and

592:

such a tag, highlighting the fact so future authors can improve the article, which I believe is part of the point of wiki... collaborative improvement over time.

1040:

Also note that you are free to edit the article as much as you want during the AfD. If you can add some sources it would be helpful towards making a decision.

821: 1464: 1565: 1206:

page. I'm relatively new to editing and after researching some other edits realized (before I noticed your revert) that I should have used a <ref: -->

1429: 193:

Anyway, I am just one person; the point of the AfD process is to gather consensus. As such, it would be more useful if you could argue your points on

1887: 1633: 1578: 419: 194: 1251: 549:, and/or did not seem significant enough to change anyone's mind. 2) Products with articles are usually not listed in comparison tables, because 1383: 748: 669:. I'm not sure what is needed to qualify as notable software on Knowledge (XXG) but in my opinion EPiServer CMS does. As an example an analyst 288:

There is only one option for requesting a deletion review, which is coincidentally also the only option for demonstrating notability: Point to

2090: 1097: 1064: 516: 450: 422:

of our community, for the reasons stated there. It is not a value judgment on the application or its developers, but on the apparent lack of

142:

Please see what's written in the AfD itself. I did not say that the article has no information, but that it does not have sources indicating

1987: 1974: 1543: 554: 1349: 1162: 909:

a marketing person to ensure that proper press releases are made, open source projects - even good ones - tend to be weak in this area.

762: 326: 311:

If one of my Clients was willing to provide an independant reference would this be adequate, and in what format should it be provided ?

1140: 666: 1891: 1637: 1582: 164:

Fair enough. However I think you should agree that the changes and additions I have made during today now exceed the requirement for

398:

Hi Haakon, why on earth did you start and conclude the whole BugNET deletion? By your standards, every single entry in this table

912:

I would appreciate your thoughts and advice. As a footnote to this message, I am not affiliated with Aria - just a user of it.

628:

Sorry for sounding angry before. I am new to wikipedia and thought that the content I was adding was being unfairly singled out.

168:

If not, please explain further. By the way, the product developers are now aware of the page and have begun contributing to it.

1970: 1539: 898: 1953: 1770: 1705: 1879: 1825: 1803: 1625: 1569: 784:

I'm curious to know why you reverted my recent changes to the "Comparison of open source software hosting facilities" page?

1387: 1365: 1883: 1629: 274:

Can you offer any suggestions on how the page can be improved in order to bring it back or request a deletion review ??

249: 1530:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1468: 1965: 1903: 1782: 1717: 1535: 338:

No, it doesn't work like that; articles aren't "accepted" at any time if nobody deletes them. Look at the comments at

2080: 1289: 1078:

I was a bit rushed, sorry. I reverted myself now. My apologies for responding to your good faith with such language.

550: 1425: 1101: 1068: 85: 52: 46: 40: 267:

have not heard of us, does not make it not Notable, and to delete one and leave the other 75 is unreasonable.

63: 2079:

has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

2075: 2060: 1421: 1414: 1402: 520: 454: 94: 1941: 1758: 1693: 1353: 1299:

I thought it was clear from the existing content of the talk page, but I added my justification now. Thanks.

330: 2098: 1166: 955:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Comparison_of_download_managers&diff=328562068&oldid=326518489

766: 714: 1345: 1158: 1128: 758: 322: 237: 130: 1899: 1285: 1260: 1213: 1136: 1022: 1895: 1641: 1577:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

1531: 703: 90: 2083:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

2050: 863: 710: 2001: 1256: 1209: 1132: 791: 1837: 838: 828: 367: 363: 316: 312: 281: 277: 1928: 1745: 1727: 1680: 1662: 1594:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

1507: 1498: 1459: 1443: 2046: 1398: 859: 629: 593: 404: 169: 120: 1937: 1754: 1689: 1527: 1511: 1376: 958: 2094: 1433: 787: 633: 597: 408: 173: 124: 69: 905:

assumed that the page was being maintained by someone with insufficient knowledge of the topic.

475:. This is an absolute requirement for encyclopedia coverage in Knowledge (XXG). I am aware that 2039: 662: 1862: 1791: 1650: 1608: 1018: 974: 919: 512: 471:

I nominated the article for deletion because, to the best of my ability, I could not find any

399: 115: 1949: 1841: 1833: 1766: 1701: 1586: 1523: 1515: 1182:, and please reconsider working on articles related to an organisation you work for. Thanks! 874: 802: 1488: 245: 65: 21: 1952:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1945: 1849: 1769:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1762: 1704:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1697: 1595: 1526:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1519: 1492: 1179: 966: 962: 931: 725: 684: 481: 476: 472: 427: 423: 346:) that would have changed the outcome there, then you can bring it up for deletion review. 289: 165: 143: 834: 1224: 546: 343: 1250:

article. I assume that's ok. I noticed that Plastic SCM has previously been listed on

1848:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

2014: 805:. Entries should not be added if they don't have their own Knowledge (XXG) articles. 728:

and should not be editing Knowledge (XXG) on topics relating to your company at all.

230: 1375:. What should such an English article be named? (There must be a better name, than " 1866: 1787: 1646: 970: 915: 1919: 1736: 1671: 1032:

I think the best approach during the AfD is to move the article to your userspace

2043: 1484: 1300: 1247: 1229: 1203: 1183: 1079: 1041: 993: 935: 878: 806: 729: 688: 558: 485: 431: 430:

suffer from this same problem; hopefully they can be sorted through eventually.

379: 347: 293: 241: 198: 147: 1428:. I noticed you've been involved with the page before, so you may want to join 683:

was that your product is not notable. For notability requirements, please see

1618:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

670: 418:

I did not "start and conclude" the deletion; the article was deleted by the

292:. If these do not exist, then there is nothing that can and should be done. 1872:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

1393:

And thank you for your previous valuable contributions, to this website.

1281: 225: 1993: 1956:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1773:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1708:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1327:. For the websites which have been using Pragyan CMS, you can check out 901:

as not noteworthy. Is there a proper way to add this back to the list?

2038:

Hi Haakon, I do have a question for you regarding an article found at

1821: 1807: 1514:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

744: 290:

instances of significant coverage in reliable, third-party publications

67: 801:

As I stated in the edit summary: because it was a redlink. Please see

224:

My name is Dan Cook. I'm contacting you because you've worked on the

2102: 2054: 2023: 1978: 1907: 1795: 1656: 1547: 1436: 1406: 1357: 1308: 1293: 1264: 1237: 1217: 1191: 1170: 1144: 1105: 1087: 1072: 1049: 1026: 1001: 978: 943: 923: 886: 867: 842: 814: 795: 770: 737: 718: 696: 637: 601: 566: 524: 493: 458: 439: 412: 387: 371: 355: 301: 206: 177: 155: 134: 98: 777:

Codesion and Comparison of open source software hosting facilities

551:

Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information

114:

added the page is because I added BugNET to this comparison page:

1324: 1553:

Proposed deletion of Cross Registry Information Service Protocol

681:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/EPiServer (2nd nomination)

1959:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1776:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1711:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1246:

Thanks for the information. I added a software infobox on the

511:

did you remove the BugNET entries from the comparison table on

2040:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software

1336: 70: 15: 2000:

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

1992: 1812: 1556: 1332: 513:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems

403:

remind you that I am not affiliated with BugNET in any way.

400:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems

258:

CredAbility.Info page marked to be, and subsequently deleted

116:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems

110: 1463:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

1372: 848:

Removal of Reference to Social Networking Software package

1844:

and LinkedIn-type links, none of which confer notability.

1202:

Sorry for the references to the company's website on the

473:

significant coverage in reliable third-party publications

166:

significant coverage in reliable third-party publications

144:

significant coverage in reliable third-party publications

1940:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

1890:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1757:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

1692:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

1636:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1457:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

1323:. Moreover, there is the sourceforge official website: 1320: 1277: 954: 1855:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1601:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1328: 340:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/CredAbility.info

1037:

have been a user for some time before you can use it.

545:

1) As far as I can remember, the coverage was not in

1476:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/You're Nicked!

1506:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 822:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/ISL Online 1836:. The only coverage in a major publication is 661:You started the deletion process for the page 190:Blogs are rarely counted as reliable sources. 8: 1579:Knowledge (XXG):General notability guideline 1315:Pragyan CMS article nominated for deletion ? 2008:redirect, you might want to participate in 1566:Cross Registry Information Service Protocol 1335:. The Pragyan TRAC is also accessible from 957:). This raised the bar for inclusion from 2004:. Since you had some involvement with the 1371:I am considering translating the article, 1465:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines 1388:similarly named article, is the way to go 1278:You added a conflict of interest template 827:Please take a look at the message I left 724:The problem is that you have a gigantic 480:wrong decision, you can put it up for a 1861:notice, but please explain why in your 1607:notice, but please explain why in your 1252:Comparison of revision control software 555:Knowledge (XXG):Write the Article First 233:.) -Dan Cook 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 1384:Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus 1056:Mantis Bug Tracker name details revert 749:Comparison of revision control systems 675:] in their "The Web CMS Report 2010". 673:list it among the Mid-range platforms 1647:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1583:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (software) 1441: 1420:Haakon, I just proposed that we move 1373:http://no.wikipedia.org/Treholt-saken 1012:CyaSSL Article Nominated for Deletion 7: 1929:2018 Arbitration Committee elections 1746:2016 Arbitration Committee elections 1681:2016 Arbitration Committee elections 1366:Trial and conviction of Arne Treholt 1364:Translation of a Norwegian article: 1942:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 1759:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 1694:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 897:I noted your removal of Aria2 from 1913:ArbCom 2018 election voter message 1850:deleted for any of several reasons 1828:because of the following concern: 1596:deleted for any of several reasons 1572:because of the following concern: 667:List_of_content_management_systems 14: 1532:review the candidates' statements 1474:The article will be discussed at 893:Removal of Aria2 (not noteworthy) 342:. If you can find references (in 2067: 1918: 1735: 1670: 1450: 831:on the deletion of the article. 665:and also removed the entry from 217:pixetell article for your review 49:: September 2006 – November 2009 20: 1963:and submit your choices on the 1321:http://en.wikipedia.org/Pragyan 899:Comparison of download managers 104:BugNET nomination for deletion? 2063:has been nominated for merging 1986:"Google Generation" listed at 1538:. For the Election committee, 1508:Arbitration Committee election 1499:ArbCom elections are now open! 1358:13:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 1325:http://pragyan.sourceforge.net 1: 2103:18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC) 1979:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) 1926:Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 1840:, other than that, it's just 1796:22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) 1743:Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 1678:Hello, Haakon. Voting in the 1548:08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 1493:23:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC) 1437:07:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC) 319:) 22:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT) 2055:07:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 1894:allows discussion to reach 1875:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1858:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1780:and submit your choices on 1715:and submit your choices on 1640:allows discussion to reach 1621:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1604:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 1534:and submit your choices on 1407:12:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 1382:There is an article called 1337:http://www.pragyan.org/trac 1309:14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 1294:14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 679:The community consensus on 477:there exists other articles 284:) 01:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT) 2118: 1971:MediaWiki message delivery 1886:exist. In particular, the 1778:the candidates' statements 1713:the candidates' statements 1657:10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 1632:exist. In particular, the 1540:MediaWiki message delivery 1426:comparison shopping engine 1265:15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC) 1238:17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 1225:independent of the subject 1218:17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) 146:, which is a requirement. 55:: November 2009 – May 2010 2091:categories for discussion 2076:Category:TWiT.tv podcasts 2061:Category:TWiT.tv podcasts 2024:22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC) 2012:if you wish to do so. - 1908:07:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC) 1880:proposed deletion process 1626:proposed deletion process 1333:http://www.pragyan.org/08 1192:21:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 1171:15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC) 1145:20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC) 1106:13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 1088:12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 1073:08:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC) 1050:20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 1027:16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 1002:18:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 979:15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 944:20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 197:instead of here. Thanks. 111:http://bugnetproject.com/ 86:List of GUI testing tools 2042:please do message me at 1988:Redirects for discussion 1467:or whether it should be 1422:price comparison service 1415:Price Comparison Service 1304: 1233: 1223:Sources cited should be 1187: 1083: 1061:to track bugs <-: --> 1045: 997: 939: 924:15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC) 887:22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 882: 868:21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC) 843:08:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 815:07:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 810: 796:23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 771:21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 738:11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC) 733: 719:10:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC) 697:21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 692: 638:01:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 602:11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 567:10:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 562: 525:10:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 494:10:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 489: 459:09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 440:08:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 435: 413:05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 388:22:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 383: 372:22:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 356:07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 351: 302:06:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 297: 202: 151: 99:20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) 2010:the redirect discussion 1867:the article's talk page 1613:the article's talk page 1118:Hi, Please do respond. 207:13:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 178:11:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 156:06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 135:23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) 43:: 2004 – September 2006 1997: 1846: 1817: 1581:and the more detailed 1561: 79:QA Wizard Pro deleted? 1996: 1938:Arbitration Committee 1892:articles for deletion 1830: 1826:proposed for deletion 1816: 1755:Arbitration Committee 1728:ArbCom Elections 2016 1690:Arbitration Committee 1663:ArbCom Elections 2016 1638:articles for deletion 1570:proposed for deletion 1560: 1512:Arbitration Committee 930:source that fulfulls 2086:the category's entry 726:conflict of interest 1516:arbitration process 1329:http://www.nitt.edu 704:Ocean Blue Software 1998: 1954:arbitration policy 1884:deletion processes 1838:this opinion piece 1818: 1771:arbitration policy 1730:: Voting now open! 1706:arbitration policy 1665:: Voting now open! 1630:deletion processes 1562: 1528:arbitration policy 1114:Go (software) page 654:EPiServer deletion 2093:page. Thank you. 2020: 2006:Google Generation 2002:Google Generation 1900:StraussInTheHouse 1804:Proposed deletion 1413:Proposed Move of 1348:comment added by 1161:comment added by 1148: 1131:comment added by 761:comment added by 325:comment added by 254: 240:comment added by 76: 75: 2109: 2071: 2070: 2018: 1922: 1877: 1876: 1860: 1859: 1815: 1739: 1674: 1653: 1623: 1622: 1606: 1605: 1559: 1454: 1453: 1360: 1173: 1155:Thanks! Teresa 1147: 1125: 773: 547:reliable sources 426:of the product. 394:BugNET deletion? 344:reliable sources 334: 253: 234: 138: 71: 24: 16: 2117: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2072: 2068: 2065: 2036: 2031: 2017: 1991: 1983: 1982: 1923: 1915: 1888:speedy deletion 1874: 1873: 1857: 1856: 1813: 1811: 1800: 1799: 1783:the voting page 1740: 1732: 1724: 1723: 1718:the voting page 1675: 1667: 1655: 1651: 1634:speedy deletion 1620: 1619: 1603: 1602: 1557: 1555: 1536:the voting page 1502: 1455: 1451: 1448: 1418: 1369: 1343: 1317: 1275: 1200: 1156: 1126: 1121:Thanks! Teresa 1116: 1098:129.247.247.239 1065:129.247.247.239 1058: 1014: 895: 850: 825: 779: 756: 752: 707: 656: 517:124.171.199.245 482:deletion review 451:124.171.199.245 396: 320: 260: 235: 219: 128: 106: 81: 72: 66: 29: 12: 11: 5: 2115: 2113: 2081:categorization 2066: 2064: 2058: 2035: 2032: 2030: 2027: 2015: 1990: 1984: 1961:the candidates 1924: 1917: 1916: 1914: 1911: 1898:for deletion. 1878:will stop the 1810: 1801: 1741: 1734: 1733: 1731: 1725: 1676: 1669: 1668: 1666: 1660: 1645: 1644:for deletion. 1624:will stop the 1592: 1591: 1554: 1551: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1460:You're Nicked! 1449: 1447: 1444:You're Nicked! 1442:Nomination of 1440: 1432:. Take care! — 1430:the discussion 1417: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1399:S(l)ick nation 1368: 1362: 1316: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1286:Walter Görlitz 1274: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1241: 1240: 1199: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1115: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1091: 1090: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1038: 1013: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 984: 983: 982: 981: 947: 946: 894: 891: 890: 889: 849: 846: 824: 819: 818: 817: 778: 775: 751: 742: 741: 740: 706: 701: 700: 699: 655: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 464: 463: 462: 461: 443: 442: 428:Other articles 395: 392: 391: 390: 359: 358: 305: 304: 259: 256: 221:Hello Haakon: 218: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 191: 183: 182: 181: 180: 159: 158: 133:comment added 105: 102: 91:SlightlybentOR 80: 77: 74: 73: 68: 64: 62: 59: 58: 57: 56: 50: 44: 35: 34: 31: 30: 25: 19: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2114: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2095:TipsyElephant 2092: 2088: 2087: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2062: 2059: 2057: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2041: 2033: 2028: 2026: 2025: 2022: 2021: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1995: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1957: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1934: 1931: 1930: 1921: 1912: 1910: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1870: 1868: 1864: 1853: 1851: 1845: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1829: 1827: 1823: 1809: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1784: 1779: 1774: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1738: 1729: 1726: 1722: 1720: 1719: 1714: 1709: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1686: 1683: 1682: 1673: 1664: 1661: 1659: 1658: 1654: 1648: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1616: 1614: 1610: 1599: 1597: 1590: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1571: 1567: 1552: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1500: 1497: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1480: 1477: 1472: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1461: 1445: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1391: 1389: 1386:. So maybe a 1385: 1380: 1378: 1374: 1367: 1363: 1361: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350:180.215.44.15 1347: 1339: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1272: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1205: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1163:71.201.16.156 1160: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1122: 1119: 1113: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1011: 1003: 999: 995: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 951: 950: 949: 948: 945: 941: 937: 933: 928: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 910: 906: 902: 900: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 852:Dear Haakon, 847: 845: 844: 840: 836: 832: 830: 823: 820: 816: 812: 808: 804: 800: 799: 798: 797: 793: 789: 785: 782: 776: 774: 772: 768: 764: 763:134.253.26.10 760: 750: 747:deleted from 746: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 722: 721: 720: 716: 712: 711:OceanBlue2010 705: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 677: 676: 674: 672: 668: 664: 659: 653: 639: 635: 631: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 603: 599: 595: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 526: 522: 518: 514: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 495: 491: 487: 483: 478: 474: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 460: 456: 452: 447: 446: 445: 444: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 416: 415: 414: 410: 406: 401: 393: 389: 385: 381: 376: 375: 374: 373: 369: 365: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 336: 335: 332: 328: 327:80.177.165.10 324: 318: 314: 309: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 286: 285: 283: 279: 275: 272: 268: 264: 257: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 232: 231:Talk:Pixetell 227: 222: 216: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 162: 161: 160: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 140: 139: 136: 132: 126: 122: 117: 112: 103: 101: 100: 96: 92: 87: 78: 61: 60: 54: 51: 48: 45: 42: 39: 38: 37: 36: 33: 32: 28: 23: 18: 17: 2084: 2074: 2073: 2045:. Thank you! 2037: 2013: 2005: 1999: 1964: 1958: 1935: 1927: 1925: 1882:, but other 1871: 1863:edit summary 1854: 1847: 1831: 1820:The article 1819: 1781: 1775: 1752: 1744: 1742: 1716: 1710: 1687: 1679: 1677: 1628:, but other 1617: 1609:edit summary 1600: 1593: 1589:. Thank you, 1587:ping me back 1576: 1564:The article 1563: 1503: 1481: 1473: 1458: 1456: 1446:for deletion 1419: 1392: 1381: 1377:Treholt-case 1370: 1340: 1318: 1276: 1201: 1154: 1150: 1133:Teresa.ann.g 1123: 1120: 1117: 1059: 1033: 1019:Chris conlon 1015: 914: 911: 907: 903: 896: 858: 854: 851: 833: 826: 786: 783: 780: 753: 708: 660: 657: 397: 360: 310: 306: 276: 273: 269: 265: 261: 223: 220: 195:the AfD page 107: 82: 26: 1966:voting page 1344:—Preceding 1248:Plastic SCM 1204:Plastic SCM 1198:Plastic SCM 1157:—Preceding 1127:—Preceding 781:Hi Haakon, 757:—Preceding 658:Hi Haakon! 553:. Also see 321:—Preceding 236:—Preceding 129:—Preceding 1950:topic bans 1767:topic bans 1702:topic bans 1652:reply here 1524:topic bans 959:due weight 877:. Thanks. 835:Jure pompe 424:notability 364:Craiggolby 313:Craiggolby 278:Craiggolby 1946:site bans 1896:consensus 1824:has been 1763:site bans 1698:site bans 1642:consensus 1568:has been 1520:site bans 671:CMS_Watch 663:EPiServer 420:consensus 53:Archive 2 47:Archive 2 41:Archive 1 2047:AmirPasc 2034:Question 2029:Question 1346:unsigned 1282:YouTrack 1273:YouTrack 1159:unsigned 1141:contribs 1129:unsigned 1096:Thanks! 860:Evilches 759:unsigned 630:GregDude 594:GregDude 405:GregDude 323:unsigned 250:contribs 238:unsigned 226:Pixetell 170:GregDude 121:GregDude 27:Archives 2089:on the 2019:HAMPION 1842:MySpace 1834:WP:BAND 1822:Draumir 1808:Draumir 1788:Mdann52 1469:deleted 971:Jdaskew 963:notable 916:Jdaskew 875:WP:WTAF 803:WP:WTAF 745:AccuRev 131:undated 1865:or on 1832:Fails 1611:or on 1510:. The 1485:Fuddle 1301:Haakon 1230:Haakon 1184:Haakon 1180:WP:COI 1080:Haakon 1042:Haakon 994:Haakon 967:WP:LSC 936:Haakon 932:WP:GNG 879:Haakon 807:Haakon 788:Mbdude 730:Haakon 689:Haakon 685:WP:GNG 559:Haakon 486:Haakon 432:Haakon 380:Haakon 348:Haakon 294:Haakon 242:DDcook 199:Haakon 148:Haakon 1257:Keith 1210:Keith 1124:Hi, 1034:after 2099:talk 2051:talk 1975:talk 1936:The 1904:talk 1792:talk 1753:The 1688:The 1544:talk 1489:talk 1434:Neil 1403:talk 1379:"? 1354:talk 1331:and 1305:talk 1290:talk 1261:talk 1234:talk 1214:talk 1188:talk 1167:talk 1137:talk 1102:talk 1084:talk 1069:talk 1046:talk 1023:talk 998:talk 975:talk 940:talk 920:talk 883:talk 864:talk 839:talk 829:here 811:talk 792:talk 767:talk 734:talk 715:talk 693:talk 634:talk 598:talk 563:talk 521:talk 490:talk 455:talk 436:talk 409:talk 384:talk 368:talk 352:talk 331:talk 317:talk 298:talk 282:talk 246:talk 203:talk 174:talk 152:talk 125:talk 95:talk 1806:of 1504:Hi, 1424:to 1280:to 961:to 127:) 2101:) 2053:) 1977:) 1969:. 1948:, 1906:) 1869:. 1852:. 1794:) 1786:. 1765:, 1721:. 1700:, 1615:. 1598:. 1546:) 1522:, 1491:) 1471:. 1405:) 1397:-- 1390:. 1356:) 1307:) 1292:) 1263:) 1236:) 1216:) 1190:) 1169:) 1143:) 1139:• 1104:) 1086:) 1071:) 1048:) 1025:) 1000:) 977:) 942:) 922:) 885:) 866:) 841:) 813:) 794:) 769:) 736:) 717:) 695:) 687:. 636:) 600:) 565:) 557:. 523:) 492:) 484:. 457:) 438:) 411:) 386:) 370:) 354:) 333:) 300:) 252:) 248:• 205:) 176:) 154:) 97:) 2097:( 2049:( 2016:C 1973:( 1902:( 1790:( 1649:| 1542:( 1487:( 1401:( 1352:( 1303:( 1288:( 1259:( 1255:- 1232:( 1212:( 1208:- 1186:( 1165:( 1135:( 1100:( 1082:( 1067:( 1044:( 1021:( 996:( 973:( 938:( 918:( 881:( 862:( 837:( 809:( 790:( 765:( 732:( 713:( 691:( 632:( 596:( 561:( 519:( 488:( 453:( 434:( 407:( 382:( 366:( 350:( 329:( 315:( 296:( 280:( 244:( 201:( 172:( 150:( 137:. 123:( 93:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index