This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greg L (talk | contribs) at 00:18, 11 March 2010 (→Sources affiliated with the subject: expand post). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:18, 11 March 2010 by Greg L (talk | contribs) (→Sources affiliated with the subject: expand post)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Start of talk page
Sources affiliated with the subject
wjemather: You slapped a tag marked “Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Misplaced Pages article.” Luc Heiligenstein published a comparative review of Cobalt and is not associated with the subject. I googled reviews, found his name, contacted him, and he responded. Does it surprise you that an author of a review of a CAD program actually knows what he is talking about and uses the program?
I did the same on Kilogram: I contacted the Ph.D. researcher working on the watt balance and exchanged some sixty e-mails with him. The fact that a Wikipedian would contact an expert might come as a shock to you and others since it is so common for Wikipedians to just regurgitate what they read from Popular Mechanics. I’d quote still other authors if I could find them. Unfortunately, there are few published reviews of Cobalt, so you go with what you have.
In the mean time, I suggest you do something more constructive to do with your time than delete content and start an AfD.
My intentions could not possibly have been clearer that I didn’t want that to be a forum for just me to display my work because right at the top of the page, it began with this:
| “ | “Topical and germane” additions to this gallery are welcome; that is, additions should be of interest to readers interested in Cobalt’s solid-modeling and image-rendering capabilities. Please keep attributions succinct and take care to avoid commercialism. | ” |
It would be just splendid if others did precisely as invited and diluted out my contributions. In spite of the drop-dead-obvious intentions as evidenced by the invitation, you offered up this doozy at your AfD: “This appears to be nothing more than a forum for advertising the authors work and/or capabilities of a particular CAD package.” I find that to be exceedingly offensive and a violation of “assume good faith” (or a profound case of jump to conclusions instead of actually read what’s there).
It would also be exceedingly good form if you’d bother to start the most minimal of a discussion thread here on this page rather than run about with your tags. Greg L (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)