User talk:Cfpcompte

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Cfpcompte, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Rmosler2100

Happy editing! rmosler (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hello, Cfpcompte. You have new messages at GB fan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Create Synchronicity, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

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. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment, OrangeMike. I indeed am well aware of the pages that you mention. However, I have tried to write this article from a point of view as neutral as possible. I furthermore didn't oppose that a neutrality tag be placed on my article, nor did I claim that it would be absolutely neutral.Provided that the project has reached a certain number of users, I considered that it would be time for it to have its own Wikipedia page, so as to be included on the list of backup software. I would be delighted, though, if you could participate in reviewing this article, so as to make sure that the point of view is actually neutral. I have made since yesterday a significant number of modifications, that I think have contributed in making this article more informative, and less prone to sounding like an advertising. Please do remember that I do not make any profit whatsoever when my software is downloaded: this is open source software we are dealing with after all :)

Another thing that one could add is that the List of backup software page is unpleasantly unbalanced: it contains almost three times more proprietary software than open source software. Creating this article contributed in restoring equilibrium a bit.

To conclude, I have added to the article that I wrote as many different sources of information as I could. I did my best to stay absolutely neutral, and to not suggest that Create Synchronicity may be better than any other software, except when the speed was due to elements in the .Net Framework itself, and were subsequently unquestionable.

OrangeMike, could you please review this article and tell me which things you consider should be improved in terms of neutrality? Cfpcompte (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Features lists, especially bulleted lists are not encyclopedic. Words like "however" "yet" and "finally" reek of the software review, as does the carefully selected pull quote. The stated aims of the programmer are irrelevant: like mission statements they may cover more than they reveal. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see; thanks for your remarks, OrangeMike. I understood however that I have to use quotes while sourcing the writing of this article. I tried to imitate what I could see in other articles about software though. Could you please point me to well-written articles about software, which make little enough use of logical connectors, so that I can draw inspiration from these? Cfpcompte (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]