151:. It was me who restored the article, though it seems as if Gwen may have been about to do so herself. The complaint she received about deletion was bitter, rather ill-tempered, and perhaps rude; but on looking at the article I had to agree that any promotion was not blatant (indeed, it didn't strike me as promotional) and I also thought that the author's complaint of a systemic pro-GNU-etc bias might have something to it; after all, it does seem that every Linux distro, however obscure, has its own article (a fact that I as a reader find very welcome). The article is primarily about a product, and therefore WP:CORP does not directly apply; further, if it
200:): " UnSafeDisc circumvents and decrypts SafeDisc encrypted files by opening the ICD file format, decrypting it, and converting it to an EXE file. However each program requires a specific patch to enable full functionality.". Many articles on wikipedia link to tools or tutorials the main purpose of which is circumventing copy control measures (and thus, are illegal in various jurisdictions), yet no one erases them or modifies them - and I think we all know why. As I said, there seem to be an anti-DRM bias on this web site, judging by the vast majority of the DRM-related articles.
191:
Secondly, I see that some sections were removed under the claim of "advertisement" (edited by JasonHockeyGuy), let me stress this once more: I have nothing to do with the vendor of TAGES. Nothing. I merely wrote an article about their product. The removed sections contain material/quotes which is/are
186:
Hi, I am the author of the article in question, sorry for not having registered on wikipedia. Let me comment on a few key issues which were brought up in here: First, my initial complaint to Gwen Gale was indeed ill-tempered, and was rather rude. Please do understand that these words were written in
128:
This article was lately tagged CSD G11 as blatant advertising and speedy deleted, since the text makes no assertion of significance. An editor who worked on it is most unhappy about this. This article is wonderfully written and informative but may not belong on
Knowledge because it clearly fails
133:, given independent and reliable coverage on this is quite thin. So where is the fuzzy line on these IT articles? I like them a lot (too much), so I get kinda wary about keeping things like this. On the other hand, IT coverage is one of Knowledge's many strengths.
155:
apply it would be a guideline, not a policy. Perhaps the best thing to do is for somebody to source a moderate degree of the content to independent references. Oh, if the article does remain I think it should be retitled "Tagès".--
187:
the heat of the moment, the minute I saw that my work was deleted on grounds of what (in my opinion) are false accusations. Please accept my apology for this crudity, as there was no intention to hurt her feelings or discredit her.
195:
Despite all this, wikipedia shows some of its two faced nature on other grounds, where there is mistreatment for other violations. Knowledge forbids copyright infringement - we all know this. Now, check the SafeDisc article
192:
well-established (documented on CDFreaks.com). Additionally, would writing about a breach of a system amount to advertising? I fail to understand the logic behind this, *there was no advertising going on*.
170:
I still think it looks like an advertisement more then anything, and tried removing some additional content to make it look more neutral, but don't know what else to do.
229:
121:
17:
260:
88:
83:
36:
259:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
175:
92:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
75:
46:
AfD withdrawn by nom after running for almost 9 days (and
Knowledge is known for its IT articles anyway)
215:
171:
138:
53:
244:
219:
179:
165:
142:
57:
239:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
161:
211:
134:
130:
49:
236:
109:
157:
79:
71:
63:
253:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
197:
116:
105:
101:
97:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
263:). No further edits should be made to this page.
230:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
228:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
198:http://en.wikipedia.org/Safedisc
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
280:
58:00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
256:Please do not modify it.
245:14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
220:13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
180:07:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
166:04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
143:17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
203:Respectfully yours.
44:The result was
247:
233:
271:
258:
242:
234:
224:
149:Confused comment
119:
113:
95:
34:
279:
278:
274:
273:
272:
270:
269:
268:
267:
261:deletion review
254:
240:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
277:
275:
266:
265:
249:
248:
222:
189:
188:
183:
182:
172:JasonHockeyGuy
168:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
276:
264:
262:
257:
251:
250:
246:
243:
238:
231:
227:
223:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
204:
201:
199:
193:
185:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
167:
163:
159:
154:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
140:
136:
132:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
255:
252:
225:
207:
202:
194:
190:
152:
148:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
212:SkyWalker
135:Gwen Gale
50:Gwen Gale
122:View log
237:the wub
131:WP:CORP
89:protect
84:history
117:delete
93:delete
158:Hoary
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
72:TAGES
64:TAGES
16:<
241:"?!"
226:Note
216:talk
208:Keep
176:talk
162:talk
139:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
235:--
232:.
153:did
218:)
210:--
178:)
164:)
141:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
214:(
196:(
174:(
160:(
137:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.