Talk:EyeOS

This article wasn't advertisment.

This is not blatant advertising

eyeOS is free software and provided at no cost, this article was created some years ago, and its maintained by the users of the project, if you don't like some parts of the article, you can help improving it, but I think that its not fair to drastically remove it. Teddybearnow (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open souce can be a business model. EyeOS offers professional services for their product. Psychcf (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on many software applications in Wikipedia. Are they blatant advertising just because they could make money from it too?

I don't understand whats the problem with this article, could anyone explain, please? Teddybearnow (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is an advertisment and clearly biased. 84.13.214.118 (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I don´t see it either. The article could clearly be improved, time and participation are needed, but I do not see it as blatant advertising, if this is advertisement, then we should be thinking of deleting the Windows Vista article, the Mac OS x article, and many more. Instead of deleting articles such as this one we should improve it. I think it has been a really big mistake to have made a speedy deletion. --Francisco Valverde (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just giving an argument against how you can't advertise something that's open source. Even if it isn't advertising, it certainly is biased, and is not encyclopedia-worthy. Psychcf (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then send it to AfD!!! Let's see what the community thinks. Maybe we could even get User:Psychcf to comment. -- Swerdnaneb 20:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - See, I feel that it should be sent to AfD because it's like a shell of a page, there's nothing here that you can't find out on their website, other then the criticism. It's not very encyclopedic anyway, I mean it seems like just a fact bin. Psychcf (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe we could get you to comment? 84.13.214.118 (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think I have that much to add. I think it's really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff with these types of articles. It is sometimes very hard to discern which references are real, worthwhile indicators of notability. If you don't think this article meets the notability standard, you are more than welcome to put it up to the community via AfD. And by you... I mean 84.13.214.118 or 167.206.224.77 -- Swerdnaneb 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those pages have a NPOV and are not advertisments.

84.13.214.118 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- ok, so to solve the problem with the article, can anyone explain whats the sentence or paragraph that is writted as an adverstiment, or from a non-neutral point of view. Just to fix it. I'm getting tired of discuss this, so, if someone can tell where exactly is the problem, I will fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddybearnow (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't you just stop removing stuff without debate? 84.13.214.118 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm waiting to listen where is the problem with this article, you keep adding this messages about neutrality problems or something else, but you DON'T explain WHERE is the problem with the article. Teddybearnow (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the criticism section because it talks about technical problems in this project that has not been proved in any real study or mentioned in any external reference site, Please, if you re-add this section, add also a reference to a newspaper or magazine that talks about this "problem" Teddybearnow (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I re-added the mention to the eyeOS was one of the 10 finalists in sourceforge awards because it is true, and there is a reference about it, in the website of sourceforge, manager of the awards. Teddybearnow (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not an award if it's not been won. 84.13.214.118 (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, i solved it changing the name of the sections, Thanks. Teddybearnow (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No you didn't, we don't need a "nominations" section. It is considered advertising. 84.13.214.118 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        About the scalability problems or design problems, references need to talk about eyeOS and this problems, not about this sciences at all, it seems to be a personal opinion, and this is not allowed in wikipedia. I'm searching for a acceptable site with a reference about this problems, but i'm unable to find it, please, could you provide some information about serious investigations on that? thanks. Teddybearnow (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        First off, it's not an opinion, it's fact. First off, it's clearly observable that eyeOS uses flat files, and makes requests to the server every time a button is clicked. These are observable facts and do not require specific references. Now, I do have to prove that database servers are more scalable then flat files, etc. I've provided references for that. Psychcf (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You need to provide references about all of this, Its a pure lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddybearnow (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About competition problems

I'm getting tired of this, psycfh is a user clearly from http://www.psychdesktop.net/ that is a compentition product of eyeOS. Wikipedia is not a place to start competition wars between bussines. I'm a community user of eyeOS, and i'm not part of the project. I only want to create a serious and clean article about this software, and you, with your economical interests and editing the article and adding lies are not helping. Please, can you stop doing this? Its immoral to use wikipedia in this way. Imagine that Pepsi goes to coca-cola article to put lies on it, do you think that this is good for wikipedia?

And why do you brought this unregistered users, that edit the article with your economical interests? are your employers? This is absolutely not ethical. Teddybearnow (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not writing any lies here. I'm citing valid sources and everything, and yet you continue to remove my changes. I (nor anyone else) am in no part benefiting economically from this. Psychcf (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, the account Teddybearnow was made around the time that the article was being voted on for deletion. I'm suspecting somebody's sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting... Psychcf (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Was there a vote for deleting this article? I'm not really sure what you are talking about here... -- Swerdnaneb 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, there was a notability block on the top of the article, along with a speedy deletion block. I'm wrong about the VfD, sorry for confusing you. Psychcf (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, wait it was deleted. Teddybearnow registered and made a post on the deleter's talk page asking to restore it, saying it had a criticism section and that it was in fact notable. Once it was restored, he then removed the criticism sections from the page. Psychcf (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is incorrect, this page was speedy deleted, but it was restored (see the deletion log for details of who deleted and who restored the article and why) and in fact, Psychcf is the admin of http://www.psychdesktop.net/ (his nick begins with psych) and he has some posts in his blogs talking about his arguments and problems with the eyeOS developers. I'm a normal user of eyeOS that is upset about the direction of this article. It can be clearly seen that Psychcf is the admin of a competition product, and is here for give bad reputation to the project. Is this allowed in wikipedia? He has no neutral point of view. Teddybearnow (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to be clear, I like this project, and I want to improve the article, and psychcf, who is clearly the owner of a competition product trying to give bad reputation to his competition, is trying disturb. Teddybearnow (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, this argument is just getting more and more childish. Can't we just discuss the freaking article allready? Psychcf (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are clearly a person with a commercial interest in this article, and you cannot deny it. What do you have to say about this, please? So, I think this kind of behavior is not welcome in wikipedia. Teddybearnow (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, sure, I'm a part of Psych Desktop. So what, it's a hobby of mine and I'm not interested in making money off of it. And if this is a conflict of interest, you're just as biased toward eyeOS as I am against it. So let's stop throwing mud and discuss the article. Why do you remove my contributions even when it's citing valid sources? If you feel so strongly against them, why don't you add a section with the opposite point of view? Psychcf (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The difference between you and me, is that you have personal interests and you own a company/organization that is competition of eyeOS, and I am a simple eyeOS users, that likes the project, and want to extend its article. About your question, I don't add my point of view because add points of view to the articles is not allowed in wikipedia. We are here to extend the article with serious and referenced information, not to add our personal opinion. So finally, I think that this discussion have no more sense, now is clear that psychcf is the owner (he admitted it) of a organization or competition project of eyeOS, and have a personal interest against it. Stop editing the article and putting your opinion about scalability or whatever else, if you want to put a criticism, you have to have valid references, and references are important and known pages, books, media or magazines. Teddybearnow (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You say this, and yet you're not saying how my contributions are biased. You're just saying I'm biased and therefore should not contribute to the article. I can admit that some words should be changed, but that's no excuse for you to remove the entire section. We can re-phrase some parts of that and it will be from a neutral point of view. Psychcf (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many self-published references

I feel that there are too many self-published references on this article. Almost half of the references fall under this category. Many of the references are unnecessary also. Thoughts? Psychcf (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]