Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:44, 14 November 2013

Software: Computing Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Cleanup Required

This page has grown out of proportions horizontally. I think the table needs to:

• have its rows and columns switched;
• have the tool rows sorted alphabetically;
• be split by some criteria into several smaller tables.

Unfortunately, I lack the skills to do that. Anyone? Torrentss (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Open Source is not a price, replace Open Source with freeware if the product is free. (Something can be open source and NOT free) --75.100.64.104 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Wikifan

If we're not careful this article will be marked for deletion:

• It may be considered a link farm -- vendors need articles reliable sources, not external links.
• All but one of the entries are notable -- they lack articles or reliable sources.
• It looks like an advertisement -- "price" shouldn't be included, it should be "license details".

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability

It's not hard to find notability for these software titles...

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Hm2k (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. But HDTune isn't primarily a S.M.A.R.T. tool; it's a fine and popular HD performance tester. It does have generic numeric field display, but from what I can see, _very_ limited mfg-specific field decoding. (Of course, maybe it doesn't matter, since so many drives don't report valid data: Toshiba MK6025GAS lies about its Reallocated Sector Count) --Lexein (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Swap Rows and Columns

Until someone finds or makes a tool to switch the rows and columns in this unfortunate table, we are just stuck.

Wish there was an article for smartmontools. -96.233.30.237 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally did it

OK, I finally switched the rows / columns and merged some of them (to reduce required horizontal space). Also, I added GSmartControl and some other minor stuff. Torrentss (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, this improved the page considerably! Mrmagmrmag (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Prediction of failure

Can someone please clarify what exactly the "Prediction of failure" column means? There are advanced tools like Hard Disk Sentinel which can predict the disk failure date by applying some statistical / mathematical models to SMART data variations over time. And then there's your standard built-in "HDD will fail during 24h" warning, and there's "this attribute looks bad, better do a backup" warning. So, which one is it? Torrentss (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the "Prediction of failure" column because there is no clear definition of what that means or which methods the tools use. Essentially, any SMART tool will have the standard built-in "FAILING" warning, so instead of having "yes" in all cells, it's better to just remove it until the meaning of the column is clearly defined.Torrentss (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

More S.M.A.R.T. tools

Here are three S.M.A.R.T. tools for Linux that may be worthy of inclusion: CrystalDiskInfo, GSmartControl and munin. Nh5h (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

GSmartControl has been there for a while now. CrystalDiskInfo is certainly not a Linux program, but feel free to add it. Munin seems to be an SNMP monitoring system which has a plugin for smartmontools. I don't think we should add every monitoring system which happens to access SMART data through smartmontools - there will be too many of them, and, strictly speaking, they are not SMART tools.Torrentss (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

6Jan2010: Hey, what happened to all the software applications that were listed? There were a dozen or more last time I looked; and have been referring loads of people to this wiki... Will someone please restore the ones that went missing?

Also, can we add something (line item/heading/subheading/whatever) that mentions that SMART data can also be accessed via plugins (Munin via SMTP)? It would be helpful since people coming to this page are looking for a tool that *shows or interprets* raw smart data (unlike drive manufacturer software such as seatools that seem to hide raw SMART data and are only good to confirm 'yep, the drive is dead.' --Some of us are unplugging our drives on a schedule every ## months and plugging them into a PC running smartmon (or whatever) and it'd be nice to inform them that there is a better way.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.19.142.10 (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

smartmontools

can you justify the claim that it lacks notability? its the de facto standard tool used by Linux and Unix users. look at the results of this google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=s.m.a.r.t.+linux ...if you want to use s.m.a.r.t. on *nix, you will almost certainly be pointed to smartmontools. Earthpigg (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's notable, create an article for it. Redlink entries will be removed. --Hm2k (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, i suppose i can do that. probably within the next week or so. 24.23.170.50 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletionists have worked hard to empty this article of useful content. (If you are looking for such info, you'll have to browse the history log, or look elsewhere.) When they manage to completely remove all mention of smartmontools, the most important SMART tool, they'll be able to sit back satisfied with another job well done.

The source code and documentation associated with smartmontools constitute the main body of public SMART info, since it is a non-standard standard rife with proprietary variations. The absence of a smartmontools article reflects poorly on WP.-96.237.69.64 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel so passionately about smartmontools, why not just create an article for it? That way it is less likely to be removed from this list and then you can sit back with the satisfaction of a job well done. --Hm2k (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Also see WP:WTAF. --Hm2k (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Make sure to read the top part that says it is a GUIDELINE and not a policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Make sure you read what guidelines are: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines...". Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have as I have also read this "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." That is a essay nothing more, you've been warned and blocked previously for removing content. Please consider stopping. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be misinformed, feel free to come have a chat and I'll tell you all about it. However, here you should comment on content, not on the contributor (Make sure to read the top part that says it is a POLICY). --Hm2k (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am commenting on your content work. It has netted you blocks in the past for the same behaviors. What in that is misinformed? WP:WTAF says it is not a policy. Again you H2mk do not WP:OWN this article and redlinks do have their uses here.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's simple. Just stick to the Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. --Hm2k (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

We've been telling you that for months and you won't adhere, if it's that simple do it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"We"? I didn't realise you represented other editors, care to explain? --Hm2k (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Selective memory problems? I think just about everyone here told you your interpatation of policy was incorrect, in this instance both in list notability and what actually constitutes a personal attack ]. Or maybe this block for disruptive editing ] which coincedently had you removing redlinks despite being asked by myself and a admin to stop as it constitutes content removal. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, comment on content, not on the contributor. --Hm2k (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am at length at ANI Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

More SMART tools

Confused? Many SMART tools were deleted from the list because of a misguided misapplication of the notability policy. (Lack of an article or evidence of notability do not imply lack of notability. (That is circular reasoning.) They can certainly support an existing NN claim for another reason. A far more complete list of notable SMART tools can be found in this version of the article. --Elvey (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elvey! Please contact me, I want to understand your post , but I am not "so good" in english. I am interested, want to find out, what was the CAUSE of removing my favourite: HD SENTINEL from the list.

my email: martin5 "at" freemail.hu .. thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcompwatt (talk • contribs) 09:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Misplaced Pages community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Also make sure you apply WP:WTAF. --Hm2k (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll make sure to follow instructions from an editor I don't agree with to apply an essay I don't agree with. Especially one who makes vague threats to call someone he disagrees with a troll. Not.--Elvey (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just stick with the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Create an article; or supply a notable reference. If you're unsure; request a WP:3O or WP:RFC. Don't come here trying to cause trouble. Also, I will be removing the tag from the article again until you follow the proper paths for dispute resolution. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Claiming there's no dispute is bad faith. Stop it. You should follow the proper path for dispute resolution; that is, don't revert claiming there's no dispute, and don't ignore my arguments at the top of this thread and simply revert. I'm not unsure as to policy regarding removal of undisputed relevant content; I am sure you misunderstand it. If you're unsure; request a WP:3O or WP:RFC. --Elvey (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no open dispute. Also, I have reported your disruption to ANI. --Hm2k (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your process wankery notwithstanding, Elvey is eminently right. Smartmontools is notable enough to include in an article like this, whether it qualifies for a separate article or not, per WP:NNC, and I think it even qualifies for the latter. Looky here , and turns , etc. A reference is sufficient to add it to this article. It does not need a separate article first. Pcap ping 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT, I still highly recommend following WP:WTAF. PS. please avoid personal attacks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reference showing that these tools are actually notable enough for inclusion here? Not blog posts, and not sourceforge pages. Linking their official pages only shows that they have a website. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You should probably take a look at WP:LISTS. --Hm2k (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a sourced article and seems to have a purpose. Formatted as is there really isno problem with this list IMOP. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem other than the obvious (directory, linkfarm and novel synthesis of primary sources). Guy (Help!) 23:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Would the original poster kindly suggest a resolution? --Hm2k (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone please revert this or this to make it have the entries of !--Elvey (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that instead you just provide notability for the entry or write the article first as per the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Content isn't subject to WP:N; and that's not a matter of an essay, but stated in N's lead section. A software title's official website constitutes a primary source, which is sufficient for content inclusion. Blogs, however, are not -- unless they are actually the only official site for the software title. Equazcion 22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Having said which, Misplaced Pages is not a directory or a link farm, so it is normal practice to apply at least some editorial judgment and not include, say, SourceForge projects with one developer and no evidence of notability, market presence or significance. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. But the standard to which Hm2k demands list items be held is WP:N, which is a fallacy. Equazcion 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, on the other hand it used to be standard practice to include in lists only those products which have, or are likely to have in short order, articles. Many "comparison of..." article fail the basic list guidelines by including products which have zero provable market impact and being drawn directly from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess if we ever go back in time that's something to think about :) I'm pretty sure current practice (and policy) is all we need to worry about. Equazcion 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The line about WP:N not directly limiting the content of articles is trotted out all the time, but WP:LSC (which is a better fit for this type of article) still suggests that we should have some inclusion criterion. Given that several of the listed tools have articles it is not improper to suggest that the criterion chosen should be "every candidate for inclusion should have an article". It's also the criterion which results in the best article quality. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of these deletions do have coverage in multiple languages, consider ] or this ]. I'm not a expert in Smart but when I can get things to come back on Google news I tend to think it's notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The criterion I suggested was that the instances had articles, not that they were notable. Being notable is a prerequisite for having an article, of course, so this works out quite neatly. But then we're back to WTAF: if these programs are notable, they should have articles. It really isn't that hard to write a fairly well-referenced stub for a software program if one puts one's mind to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why redlinks are great. It indicates a organized way for somoene who is a expert with Smart to write the articles. I write more state park articles and Register articles myself and in both subjects redlinks have been vital to me writing them. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not opposed to a temporary moratorium on removing entries which are redlinked, on those grounds. However, some of the entries in question have been waiting for articles for over a year. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the list is occasionally pruned of entries which have failed to attract articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For someone coming from the german language WP (which has different guidelines in many cases) this discussion reads quite strange. Never have I encountered editors removing not just wikilinks but actual list entries based on a misinterpretation of an often opposed very weak essay camouflaged (here) as guideline or solely on the argument "no one cared to write an article for over a year". Maybe I was just lucky? WP:LSC may be applied but certainly not with the criterion that Cunningham suggests. --Ettuquoque (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Palimpsest

Palimpsest supports USB, PATA, and SATA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.208.80 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lavalys Everest

does support reading of smart data too, at least the newer versions. --Echosmoke (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

CrystalDiskInfo

The SMART alerts this program generates cannot be customized very much by the user (setting threshold values for various parameters as desired). Is there a comparison guide for all SMART tools that allows finding SMART monitors that can generate very customized alerts?-96.233.20.116 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Disk Utility

Disk Utility CAN show SMART Attributes. You click on a disk and then hit "Info" 99.99.61.169 (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

To date, no clear inclusion criteria have been specified as recommended in WP:LIST, and many entries have been deleted just for not having articles, even though their claims are verifiable in independent reliable sources. The reason "not having an article" (meaning, apparently, not notable), is not alone a strong reason for exclusion of content. N is explicitly not to be used for exclusion for content from an existing article. So I added a hidden comment near the top:

INCLUSION CRITERIA:

Please add only entries with articles, or add inline citations of multiple independent reliable sources for verification of claims made.

This can be converted to an WP:Edit notice once final text has consensus. I hope this satisfies concerns. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

WP:NOTDIR clearly states that Misplaced Pages may only index and list its own contents. Notability also applies to articles only; it does not apply to single list entries. Otherwise, it is not a directory of any sort. If you wish to enforce rules that rival and override WP:NOT (a fundamental policy), I am afraid a talk page discussion is not enough. (You need village pump discussion and consensus.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sarcastic "Best regards" aren't polite or civil, so knock it off. Waving around non-applicable policies doesn't help. WP:NOTDIR doesn't say or imply "may only" in any way - to say it does is bluntly false. It just doesn't apply in the overbroad, anti-WP:V content, anti-WP:N-does-not-exclude-content way you're suggesting. Not only is this list not a list of "everything in the known universe" (quoting NOTDIR), I'm not trying to enforce anything beyond its intended scope, but you are. Show me the discussion leading up to your conclusions. --Lexein (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

I could quote you from WP:NOTDIR but the force in your message suggests that you have already made up your mind. So, you should probably proceed down the chain of WP:DR for dispute resolution. But just for the record, I do quote: "Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists" does not mean that "a list of everything in the universe is not allowed"; it means no list is allowed unless it adheres to the purpose stated. The purpose stated is: "...In that sense, Misplaced Pages functions as an index or directory of its own content." The page later clarifies: "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business" as an example of what's not allowed; that's exactly what this list is.

And my "best regards" wasn't sarcastic at all; that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I hate you. In fact, I still don't.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, DR says we stay here. You haven't proven your case, not with circular quotations of blahblah, misinterpreted. This is not a mere list of wikilinks. It is actually more like a comparison table, which makes it a hybrid, closer in type to an article. Oh, look, it's called "Comparison" right in the title. Oh, my. It enjoys the greater content freedoms of an article; if it doesn't, them delete the table, and winnow it down to the wikilinks. Your deletion of the inclusion criteria goes against logic and WP:Lists. Your improper logic pits WP:N and WP:V directly against WP:NOT. If you read the history of NOT (first essay, becoming a (surprise!) policy in 2005), you'll see that it's a hodgepodge of defensive measures against abuse. Worse, you see that abuse in the inclusion of cited, RS, relevant, non-controversial content, which is a logically poor position to take. Next, you interpret state as if it were a stricture, which is a fallacy. That WP does index its own content does not mean that's all it does, as you prefer. That NOTDIR hash, applied to cited content, are void in the face of N and V if they make no mention of verifiability, sources, or relevance. Relevant reliably-sourced content permitted and encouraged by several policies cannot be handwaved away by a weaker one, even with dogged rewriting on the fly. Referring to this list as a directory is disingenuous. The directories referred to in WP:NOTDIR are far more general than this, and they include further identifying information like location or phone numbers, hence the repeated mention of those characteristics. This is most assuredly not a directory. This is a tightly specific comparison of software with a specific function, for which all content must be verifiable. You can't end-run other policies by a misapplication of NOTDIR. By the way, I approve of the deletions of uncited entries, but I most emphatically do not agree with the deletion of cited-by-RS content, which is discussed at length in reliable sources. If you're uncomfortable with the title "List", we'll just move it to "Comparison". Oh, wait, it already is. When a (in this case, badly written, and too-easy-to-misapply) policy is standing in the way of writing a decent article, or in this case, a comparison, ignore it. Let's. --Lexein (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

I just finished reading your message and before I say anything, there are two things you need to clarify:

1. Is it an article or a stand-alone list? It can be both, but then it must satisfy the inclusion criteria for both; if I say "it is overwhelming", that'd be a huge understatement. Personally, I think it is a list. I never made the mistake of thinking the only list is a bulleted or numbered list. Tables are, most of the times, lists; comparison tables are always lists.
2. Do you want to abide by the policies or do you want to ignore them? Make no mistake, I have heard the sentence "writing a decent article" so much that I have no faith in it; if one hundredth of them were true, Misplaced Pages would have now been full of featured articles. So, I won't hold any value in it unless I see signs of it being true.

That said, yes, arguments like "but this page is not a list of everything in the universe" in response to "Misplaced Pages is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists" are so childish that I don't even give them the pleasure of handwaving them. And the fact that WP:NOT was once an essay doesn't make me think any less of it, let alone violate it; it is now a fundamental policy, so its original writer has my highest respects for writing such a popular thing. It says we are not a directory and that means a hybrid of directory is not allowed either.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll trying not to repeat myself, since you ignored my key points. Your ad hominem abuse won't fly either. I meant, and you know this, that this list/comparison table has a well defined limited range of acceptable content - bluelinked or multi-RS-cited - it is not indiscriminate, or everything. Nice try misinterpreting me, and then attacking. And as long as respect is being handed out, it must be given to the actual, general definition of "directory", which this definitively isn't. Nobody uses that word to describe highly focused lists, or comparison tables. Go ahead: print it out and show it to people, without the title. Ask them neutrally: is it a directory or a list or a comparison? Nobody will seriously regard it as a directory. Don't say they will; they won't. Trying to shoehorn it into that definition won't make it so. Small, concise, well-limited lists do not need to be limited to having only existing articles. Sorry you can't see it. Your position leans hard on abusing N (must have article) to force content out of this comparison, and that's plain wrong. If you look at the day NOT became policy, that weird false (incomplete) language you're fond of flogging wasn't there, and it doesn't belong there now, either. The fact, missing from the current NOTDIR lead sentence, is "Misplaced Pages encompasses many lists of links to articles within Misplaced Pages that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject, and which also include reliably sourced items in the list topic." That's the ongoing literal truth of the state of Misplaced Pages lists, as is currently implemented, which abide by the totality of intention of N, yet which you reject. RS are RS - facts supported by independent RS which are relevant to the article or list or comparison, are, bluntly, allowed, like it or not. I know the intention of NOTDIR is to prevent abuse, but what I'm supporting in this edit squarely isn't. --Lexein (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw this listed at WP:3O, but am not "taking" it as a Third Opinion Wikipedian and am leaving it listed there because I seem to recall having had some prior interaction with both of you at one time or another and one (or both) of you may not consider me to be a fully-neutral party. Having said that, I'm not at all sure what it is exactly that's in dispute here. Is it:

• The contents of the proposed selection criteria?
• The need for the selection criteria?
• Whether or not this is a stand-alone list to which WP:LSC applies?
• Whether it is a list which might violate NOTDIR?
• All of the above or none of the above?

Even if I don't give you an opinion, clarification of just what the issue is would help. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also invited as a reviewer but I'm not here to support either of the sides. But User:Lexin has attitude problem and a lot of it; he is talking bullshit and shiploads of it. Dude, if you are high, don't contribute. If don't take WP:CIVIL seriously, you have no rights here, be it right to edit, right to revert, right to discuss, or even right to read Misplaced Pages. Never in my life have I seen such a disruptive editor whose 99% of discussion is personal attack and the remaining 1% is too soaked in rudeness to be distinguishable. Fleet Command (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If any of you two would genuinely like to solve the problem, a mediated discussion, like a DRN, is the way to go. But then, both of you must put aside incivility and fairly and without bias, treat eachother's points of view. I am neither suggesting nor denying whether incivility is present in both participants. I am saying it must not be seen. At best, you should request a neutral party to compose the text of dispute resolution request, after having taken a ton of chill pill. Fleet Command (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Stub-Class software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Stub-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
• Stub-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles