|
The article NuttX RTOS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable OS
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ridernyc (
talk) 03:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of NuttX RTOS for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NuttX RTOS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NuttX RTOS 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.
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 template from the top of the article. Ridernyc ( talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to removed referenced information from the NuttX RTOS article please discuss your changes on the articles talk page before making them. There appears to be a possible conflict of interest and some POV pushing here. Ridernyc ( talk) 22:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also,
this is a violation of
the meatpuppetry policy. You may not tell a community to come here to support your cause, and their opinions will matter little when closing the discussion.--
Jasper Deng
(talk) 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. Survey sample size of 93 together with the fact that the survey was made by one of the entities listed implied a low confidence level. I thought that was against the policy about reputable and independent references. Don't understand why it should stay there though. JAlvarez ( talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the
username you have chosen (JAlvarez) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.
There are two issues with this:
- It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
- Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 00:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
NuttX RTOS concerns
I don't want to remove half the content in the article without discussing it with you first, but it looks like was some of the text was copied directly from http://nuttx.sourceforge.net/, which means that it is likely to be a copyright violation. From what I'm seeing, everything from the Key features section to Graphics support was taken from the website verbatim. Would you mind rewriting the content into your own words, to avoid any copyright issues? - Sudo Ghost 03:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please fulfill your duties and delete all sections that you consider copyright violations. If there are any, they are not intended as such. All censors have decided to delete the article after the 7 day discussion period so any editing on my part seems to be a futile effort.
JAlvarez (
talk) 03:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you intended them as such, just that there are potential legal issues with having content in a Wikipedia article (which uses CC-BY-SA 3.0) when the content it was taken from legally retains the copyright for the material in question. As for the AfD, nothing has been decided, the decision to delete or keep the article is determined by the closing admin; an uninvolved third-party administrator that assesses the discussion and determines if a consensus has been reached as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. - Sudo Ghost 03:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NuttX RTOS. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Sudo
Ghost 23:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't consider my questioning an attack and am sorry you have interpreted it in that fashion. In that discussion some of my arguments have been suppressed as puppetry and some have been regarded as biased, wrong or based on conflicts of interest. Yet I regard that as part of a (somewhat heated) discussion and not an attack. Even though we certainly disagree in several areas, I do recognize your arguments are carefully prepared with detailed references and thoughtful use of the language. Most other editors don't have that attention to detail and don't go beyond a brief response to defend Wikipedia policies. In respect to Wikipedia rules and in consideration to editors with your level of commitment, I will comply with your request and limit the scope of my questioning to the subject matter.
JAlvarez (
talk) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the conflict of interest issue has no bearing on the AfD whatsoever. Gregory Nutt himself could have written the article, and so long as the notability satisfied one or more of the notability guidelines, would have no issue with remaining an article. The CoI issue is a separate one, unrelated to the AfD discussion, concerning the actual wording of the article. The only thing that tag at the top of NuttX RTOS means is that there are concerns that a possible conflict of interest is there (not that one actually is there), and that a neutral editor should come along and ensure that what is being said in the article is actually reflected by the sources given, nothing more. It has no bearing on notability or the AfD discussion, but is meant to ensure that the article in written in accordance with WP:NPOV.
- As for the collapsed comments, I had nothing to do with that, but the comments are still there, and will still be reviewed, but I believe the editor collapsed these comments because the comments are in essence saying how wonderful or important NuttX is, as opposed to showing how notable it is per Wikipedia's criteria, so these comments don't really contribute towards showing notability, which is the crux of the discussion. -
Sudo
Ghost 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I collapsed them per
WP:MEAT to avoid giving the impression of ballot-stuffing.--
Jasper Deng
(talk) 02:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that too. Guess the title of the collapsed boxes should have
tipped me off that maybe that had something to do with it. -
Sudo
Ghost 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I thought about contacting the main NuttX developer (Gregory Nutt) to contribute on the article but thought it would be better to wait until the AfD issue is decided before using up his time. Yet after edits from several people, the article could use his input to improve flow and accuracy. Would this be accepted by the editors or is it against Wikipedia rules? JAlvarez ( talk) 22:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that too. Guess the title of the collapsed boxes should have
tipped me off that maybe that had something to do with it. -
Sudo
Ghost 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I collapsed them per
WP:MEAT to avoid giving the impression of ballot-stuffing.--
Jasper Deng
(talk) 02:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for the collapsed comments, I had nothing to do with that, but the comments are still there, and will still be reviewed, but I believe the editor collapsed these comments because the comments are in essence saying how wonderful or important NuttX is, as opposed to showing how notable it is per Wikipedia's criteria, so these comments don't really contribute towards showing notability, which is the crux of the discussion. -
Sudo
Ghost 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
|
The article NuttX RTOS has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable OS
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ridernyc (
talk) 03:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of NuttX RTOS for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NuttX RTOS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NuttX RTOS 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.
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 template from the top of the article. Ridernyc ( talk) 03:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
If you want to removed referenced information from the NuttX RTOS article please discuss your changes on the articles talk page before making them. There appears to be a possible conflict of interest and some POV pushing here. Ridernyc ( talk) 22:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also,
this is a violation of
the meatpuppetry policy. You may not tell a community to come here to support your cause, and their opinions will matter little when closing the discussion.--
Jasper Deng
(talk) 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. Survey sample size of 93 together with the fact that the survey was made by one of the entities listed implied a low confidence level. I thought that was against the policy about reputable and independent references. Don't understand why it should stay there though. JAlvarez ( talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the
username you have chosen (JAlvarez) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.
There are two issues with this:
- It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
- Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. elektrik SHOOS ( talk) 00:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
NuttX RTOS concerns
I don't want to remove half the content in the article without discussing it with you first, but it looks like was some of the text was copied directly from http://nuttx.sourceforge.net/, which means that it is likely to be a copyright violation. From what I'm seeing, everything from the Key features section to Graphics support was taken from the website verbatim. Would you mind rewriting the content into your own words, to avoid any copyright issues? - Sudo Ghost 03:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please fulfill your duties and delete all sections that you consider copyright violations. If there are any, they are not intended as such. All censors have decided to delete the article after the 7 day discussion period so any editing on my part seems to be a futile effort.
JAlvarez (
talk) 03:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you intended them as such, just that there are potential legal issues with having content in a Wikipedia article (which uses CC-BY-SA 3.0) when the content it was taken from legally retains the copyright for the material in question. As for the AfD, nothing has been decided, the decision to delete or keep the article is determined by the closing admin; an uninvolved third-party administrator that assesses the discussion and determines if a consensus has been reached as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. - Sudo Ghost 03:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NuttX RTOS. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Sudo
Ghost 23:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't consider my questioning an attack and am sorry you have interpreted it in that fashion. In that discussion some of my arguments have been suppressed as puppetry and some have been regarded as biased, wrong or based on conflicts of interest. Yet I regard that as part of a (somewhat heated) discussion and not an attack. Even though we certainly disagree in several areas, I do recognize your arguments are carefully prepared with detailed references and thoughtful use of the language. Most other editors don't have that attention to detail and don't go beyond a brief response to defend Wikipedia policies. In respect to Wikipedia rules and in consideration to editors with your level of commitment, I will comply with your request and limit the scope of my questioning to the subject matter.
JAlvarez (
talk) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the conflict of interest issue has no bearing on the AfD whatsoever. Gregory Nutt himself could have written the article, and so long as the notability satisfied one or more of the notability guidelines, would have no issue with remaining an article. The CoI issue is a separate one, unrelated to the AfD discussion, concerning the actual wording of the article. The only thing that tag at the top of NuttX RTOS means is that there are concerns that a possible conflict of interest is there (not that one actually is there), and that a neutral editor should come along and ensure that what is being said in the article is actually reflected by the sources given, nothing more. It has no bearing on notability or the AfD discussion, but is meant to ensure that the article in written in accordance with WP:NPOV.
- As for the collapsed comments, I had nothing to do with that, but the comments are still there, and will still be reviewed, but I believe the editor collapsed these comments because the comments are in essence saying how wonderful or important NuttX is, as opposed to showing how notable it is per Wikipedia's criteria, so these comments don't really contribute towards showing notability, which is the crux of the discussion. -
Sudo
Ghost 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I collapsed them per
WP:MEAT to avoid giving the impression of ballot-stuffing.--
Jasper Deng
(talk) 02:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that too. Guess the title of the collapsed boxes should have
tipped me off that maybe that had something to do with it. -
Sudo
Ghost 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- I thought about contacting the main NuttX developer (Gregory Nutt) to contribute on the article but thought it would be better to wait until the AfD issue is decided before using up his time. Yet after edits from several people, the article could use his input to improve flow and accuracy. Would this be accepted by the editors or is it against Wikipedia rules? JAlvarez ( talk) 22:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that too. Guess the title of the collapsed boxes should have
tipped me off that maybe that had something to do with it. -
Sudo
Ghost 02:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I collapsed them per
WP:MEAT to avoid giving the impression of ballot-stuffing.--
Jasper Deng
(talk) 02:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for the collapsed comments, I had nothing to do with that, but the comments are still there, and will still be reviewed, but I believe the editor collapsed these comments because the comments are in essence saying how wonderful or important NuttX is, as opposed to showing how notable it is per Wikipedia's criteria, so these comments don't really contribute towards showing notability, which is the crux of the discussion. -
Sudo
Ghost 01:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)