User talk:Thoward37

PowerShell (X11 terminal emulator)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of PowerShell (X11 terminal emulator), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://powershell.sourceforge.net/docs/c38.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 01:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of your answer is above, which led me to the page. The rest is noted in the article's deletion summary: "notability not asserted". It's not enough for an article to be accurate; articles that fail to assert their subjects' notability may be deleted by administrators on sight. Please review WP:N before attempting to add articles to Wikipedia. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  07:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you bother to research the topic before decided it was not of note? Did you go to www.google.com and enter the phrase "Powershell X11" and see large amount of hit results that came back? This is a piece of software that has been widely in use for over 7 years in the Linux domain. There are plenty of references to it, and it is a well known productivity tool for users of GNOME based GUIs. It is available as a package for many of the popular linux distributions. To put it simply, just because *you* don't know about it, does not mean that is "not of note".

The above copyright flag was due to the fact that I initially just copied and pasted some information from the main webpage for the program, because I didn't have a lot of time to write an article. I saw that message, and I immediately wrote up a different article that stated the same basic information in my own words, which made the copyright bot happy.

Your deletion has had a cascading effect, because now, since you've deleted this article, it left a broken link in another article. That article has since been edited to remove that broken link, and the content that went with it. Meaning that, yet again, there is an ambiguity problem on the Wiki in relation to the term "Powershell". That was the purpose of my edits - to remove that ambiguity, and now that work has been completely undone, and the information here is less accurate.

Please do not delete other people's work without a) dicussing it first b) doing some basic research or c) having a significant knowledge of the domain that you are making decisions about.

Regarding the Wiki notability policy that you directed me to, I did read it prior to posting, and I'm well aware of the policies that direct the content editing of Wikipedia. Ironically, you seem to have missed the section in that article entitled, "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines", and the detailed processes for how to handle such situations. There is only one option for deletion in that list, and it requires following the processed outlined in criteria for speedy deletion. You also did not follow that process. In fact, you simply, deleted a page without any process at all, and without having sufficient knowledge of the topic to make a responsible decision.

That said, I realize the article was short, and didn't contain a lot of information. I entered it as a "stub" so that I could come back to it and flesh it out more fully when time permitted. Perhaps if you had followed the correct process (outlined on the page that you directed me to re-read), you could have requested that the original author add more detail, references, add content to assert the notability, etc.. Which I would have gladly done. Now, I have to redo a lot of typing, which will consume my time, before I can even start at writing a more detailed article.

How has this helped anyone?

Thanks,

Troy Thoward37 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not my job to research articles that violate Wikipedia's policies. It is incumbent upon the author of an article to demonstrate the notability of the subject. Articles are not to be posted to Wikipedia without asserting notability. If you do so, you run the risk that the article will be deleted per WP:CSD#A7, as I did here. Articles are also not to be posted to Wikipedia without citing sources. It says on every edit screen that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." If these policies are ignored, we will be overwhelmed by unsourced articles on non-notable subjects, and the quality of the project will be diluted. -- But|seriously|folks  05:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)