User talk:Mig21

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with ISO Master. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

What discussion? What are you guys talking about? There was no discussion that I could find anywhere.

I see you found the discussion after all and left a question there. I'll try to answer your questions here since that page is designed for policy-based discussions about whether the subject is or is not notable. Once you understand how that's decided, you can add a comment as to whether it should be kept or deleted as described at WP:DISCUSSAFD.

The nomination rationale I provided was "PRODed over a year ago and was restored. Referenced only by primary sources and I could find none in WP:RSes." Since you asked, "Can you please explain what you just said in language a regular human being can understand? Thanks in advance." I'll break it down for you. A PROD is the second type of deletion discussion and it's short for a "proposed deletion". In short, if someone places a PROD on an article and no one removes that notification, a bot comes along seven days later and the article is deleted without discussion. It's useful for subjects that do not qualify for the first type of deletion, a speedy deletion or for an article that has been around a while. Since the article was deleted seven days after I nominated it that way, it was gone, but a record of it still existed. You then asked for it to be restored, and the admin restored it. So that covers my first sentence.

The only references in the article are what we call WP:PRIMARY, "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". In the case of this article, the two sources are 1) release notes and 2) a product FAQ. I take it that you know what "I could find none" means. The RSes is linked to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which I'll try to explain here because that's probably the most involved document. It is best summarized by the first sentence in the body: "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I could also have pointed to WP:GNG, which is summarized as, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." To summarize the second sentence in my nomination means that when I looked 15 months ago, I couldn't find an significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discussed it. There's are links on the nomination page that point to Google searches. I ran those manually and there are about 61,000 results. If you can find reliable sources (no blogs, no publications that don't list an editorial policy, whether print or online, if in doubt, you can check the archives at WP:RSN) that give it significant coverage (not just a passing mention) that are independent of the subject (as opposed to are trying to distribute it or are its authors) feel free to add them directly to the article or on the article's talk page.

Granted, you didn't read the hidden comment when you removed the AfD: "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the discussion has been closed", so I'm not sure you'll read any or all of this. If you have any questions, feel free to use either the {{help}} for general questions or {{ping}} to contact me. Be sure to click through to anything with a link and read what's there.

For what it's worth, when I nominated your article, I also nominated several other media burning applications, all of which were deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining @Walter:. I have little experience discussing things in a wiki format, and for some reason email notifications were turned off for me so I never knew any of this was happening even though I was subsribed to the page.

I will go through the page and expand it. There are countless "reliable sources" independent of the software author that mention various parts of this application's history. Mig21 (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mig21. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article ISO Master, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Based on your comment at File:Isomaster screenshot vista.png, I believe you have a vested interest in the product Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Walter:: I am the author of the application. I have tried very hard to be objective. Please clarify in Talk:ISO_Master what you feel is inappropriate, and feel free to improve or suggest improvements. Mig21 (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I never claimed anything other than your direct involvement is problematic. You don't seem to have a clear understanding of how Wikipedia works and this will continue to cause problems. Your best bet now is to prove that your product meets WP:GNG: it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This means write-ups, not how-tos or lists of ports, in sources that have little or nothing to do with you or the product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

you don't get it

There is only one way that you can keep your product's article on Wikipedia: find

1. significant coverage
2. in reliable sources
3. that are independent of the subject

Anything else is not useful. Discussing how to remove the AfD notice will happen when the community is ready to remove it. And there's no statute of limitations. If we decide to keep it now for whatever reason, an editor can come along in a year's time and nominate it again. That can happen until it's deleted. So your best bet is to either stop promoting your project or fin significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There are rules against copying my comments to the discussion. If you insist on being difficult I will be forced to report you to the admins and let them deal with your self-promotion. Have a good life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)