User talk:Paryll Nur/MappingOut/archive

From article

This info is for reference to one of the most useful software for Guild War. Considering the enormous work done by the author, the tremendous usefulness, as well as the fact that this is freeware. An honorable mention should be allowed. Personnally, I have never seen something so useful in my Guild War experience aside from Wiki, of course. This is a very good complement to Wiki and your own private little database. The most useful aspect of it yet, is the ability to see on the map which Elite skills remain to be collected for the Elite collector title. Please do not delete this info for these reasons. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Paryll Nur (talk).

Links to this page

I'm not quite sure the wording or even the placement of all the links to this page are correct, I'll let one of the more senior GWW guys take a look though.- TheRave 13:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion

I'm not sure about it being a candidate for deletion, bearing in mind that other third party programs (such as Texmod) have a place on the wiki.- TheRave 13:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

To confirm Guild_Wars_Wiki:Article_retention specifies

"The Guild Wars Wiki retains information on any tools that players use in-game (such as voice chat). We do not retain any information on external websites (such as fansites and forums). We do not retain information that provides the means to violate, or advocates the violation of, the Guild Wars Terms of Service, such as information on sites that sell gold, provide farming bots, or facilitate account trading.

Our policy on fansite information is currently being discussed at Talk:Fansite. Until a change in policy is accepted by the body of editors, we retain no information on particular fansites."

This page does conform to that so I don't think it should be a candidate for deletion. Its understandable to remove the many pages linking to it though.- TheRave 13:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that our article retention policy is horribly out of date in some parts, we already list Texmod and how to use it. I don't think this is a clear cut deletion, but I'm not sure if belongs on wiki either. It seems to be a very useful tool, but I have never heard of it before. Is it widely used? - anja 13:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) The section "use in-game (such as voice chat)" is the problem. Unlike voice chat or even textmod, this is a database used outside the game itself. And keep in mind that the purpose of the wiki is to document the game - textmod was added here because so many people were using it that someone could come here trying to know what it is. This database is trying to go the other way around - using the wiki so people know about it and then begin to use it. That's advertisement. Erasculio 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can understand that.- TheRave 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

GWO has never heard of this, nor TGH. There's a rather big topic about it on GWG. IMO, still not in the scope to be featured here. Erasculio 14:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot other tools for Guild Wars players, for example GW Teambuilder or Guild Wars Visions, and if we document one of those, we really have to document all; as long as that is not the case, I'm for deletion. poke | talk 16:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Imho, I would think the wiki would be better if it was "inclusive" rather than "exclusive". That is, allowing more information to be here rather than less. In this case it seems this article is not A) Explicitly forbidden by policy; B) Not harmful (i.e. not vandalism or full of profanity etc); and C)Related to Guild Wars as its a tool people use while playing the game. Someone has, obviously, taken the time to write the article, and given the previous statement what's the problem with having it? Regarding poke's statement about documenting all other programs, I don't know how exactly he meant it but the presence of one article does not necessitate the presence of others. It would simply mean that people are able to write them here on the wiki if someone wants to take the time to do so as someone obviously has in this case. That is, just because this one exists doesn't automatically mean the wiki community has to go out and document all of them. Lojiin 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure linking to all those third party programs, potentially having malware and etc, would help the wiki (specially given how this is the official wiki, and Arena Net does not endorse those softwares, but rather warn against them). Inclusion only helps when it's for the betterment of the wiki, otherwise we would have a huge builds section here, instead of documenting only the builds that may be looked for by players who see them elsewhere. I see this issue under the same light - we could just list all the GW tools out there, but IMO we should keep only those that are common knowledge among players and may be sought here. Erasculio 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this really doesn't belong on the wiki. I understand there is a fairly standard practice of not allowing advertising, and this is clearly advertising a 3rd party software. TextMod is used directly in conjunction with the game, while this is a stand alone program. Linking to fansites is one thing, linking to and promoting 3rd party software packages is something completely different. -- Wyn 17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree slightly on the inclusion point. In my opinion, I think the concern should not be "does it better the wiki" so much as "will it benefit the users of the wiki". That is, perhaps, a fine distinction to make but the purpose of the wiki is to help the players isn't it? I can see the concern with malware but I don't think the risk is any different with any other link that's here on the wiki including, for instance, the player made mod list for textmod. It'd be fairly easy to draft a notice for any page about external software (and there might even be one already I don't know) to say something like, "Note that ArenaNet does not support or endorse any external 3rd party software." And "Beware when looking at external websites as there is potentially malicious software present". Also, as a slight aside, I wouldn't necessarily see a problem if people posted builds here either so long as they did so in the appropriate space. Say, user space. Similarly here, if this article is in the correctly location (External programs/aids or whatever) I see no harm in having it and potential benefit. Lojiin 17:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(ri) One other thing that occurred to me a minute ago. If we were to look at this page and ask the question : Would a person browsing around and/or using this wiki find this page useful? What does everything think the answer would be? Personally (to answer my own question) I think it would be somewhat useful if people were looking for an aid to skill capping. Lojiin 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would say no. For instance into the response to it aiding skill capping, it doesn't help any more than the wiki already does.

I, too, don't see anything so useful about linking to a possible source of malware that could lead an account to be hacked in order to display information already available in this wiki or in GuildWiki. Erasculio 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I mirror Erasc and the others. If I was looking to cap an elite light Light of Deliverance, I would type in "Light of Deliverance," not "MappingOut" or even "Tools." -Auron 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you misunderstood but ok. I meant that I found the program useful when I was skill capping, not that "If I were skill capping would I come to the wiki to look for a 3rd party program." I originally meant, "Is this page useful to a player using this wiki" That is, does it provide helpful information if someone were to come across it. Not specifically for any particular purpose. Lojiin 18:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As they've pointed out above, it needs to be useful to people who come to the wiki looking for something, not useful to the people who patrol recentchanges. If it's huge in-game and people talk about it a lot (like texmod or vent/teamspeak/skype), then yeah, we're documenting what people use. But... nobody uses it. I've never heard of it, several forums worth of people never heard of it, and thus it isn't a useful resource for people on the wiki to find/search for. At most we'd be advertising a product, not simply informing people who are looking for information. -Auron 18:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the usefulness and that's really what I'm asking. If some random user is looking for something to help him/her out, is this useful to them? I don't necessarily agree that popularity is a good measure for that though in general good tools will be more popular than bad ones. Also, I didn't personally see the content of the page as an advertisement but that's just my opinion on it. Lojiin 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as an advertisement either. Just some more thoughts on usefulness from my opinion, all of its "Features" listed are currently covered either by the Game itself or by the Wiki (excepting one: keeping track of greens collected).- TheRave 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to note Paryll Nur (the author) has made a small response on his Talk Page- TheRave 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no way in which this page helps most wiki users. As far as I can tell, the program contains no information that the wiki itself does not have. The program has no advantage over the wiki in utility (you still need to either minimize or run the game in windowed mode to view the wiki or this program, and the ability to use it offline is rather unnecessary for an online-only game).

More importantly is the question of documenting third-party programs in general. If we start documenting any program made to work alongside GW, I guarantee you someone will create a fairly innocuous program to keep track of this or that title, with a keylogger in it. People will see it on the wiki, figure that means it's safe, and then suddenly we have hundreds of people yelling at Anet demanding to know how their account was hacked. I'm not accusing this program of being an example of that, but on the other hand, I have no way of knowing one way or the other. It's just not a good road to go down.

Yes, Texmod is an exception to this, but Texmod has existed since before Guild Wars was created and has a long following of technically-minded people completely unrelated to the program who say it's clean, and the user-created .tpf files are not executables and cannot really do anything except what the actual Texmod program does. Texmod also does things that cannot be done with a website or a simple Excel spreadsheet (don't want to spend money on MS Excel? See Wikipedia for free alternatives).

Long story short, anything on the wiki is linked to the wiki's reputation, and we cannot certify every program some GW player cooks up some weekend to keep track of things in what they feel is a better way. We don't have the time and 99% of us don't have the technical expertise. If you'd like to use it, if you'd like to share it with your friends, that's your business and their business. It doesn't belong on the wiki. - Tanetris 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaning no slight to Tanetris at all who I'm sure means well, but I disagree with the approach indicated at the end of his reply. I think that the wiki by its nature allows people to share information relating to its subject (in this case Guildwars). That being the case I think it would be best served if everyone felt they could contribute and that policy encouraged (and/or required whichever you prefer) them to do so in the right place and in the right way. Imho, the thinking that x doesn't belong on the wiki in the case where x is guildwars related and not harmful, will add to a atmosphere where users feel they are restricted and unable to share information. So in this case, one could say that Paryll is trying to share something (s)he found useful why restrict them from doing so? Rather, would it not be better to encourage them to do so but in the right places/manner? Lojiin 19:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He can put it on his userpage. What are you talking about restricting information? It doesn't belong in main namespace, but it's fine to put on his userpage. -Auron 19:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the general tone of the discussion on this page. He isn't being encouraged to share correctly, its simply being said that this doesn't belong on the wiki at all. Lojiin 19:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm seeing two issues in the actual discussion of this article's deletion: 1, GWW:CONTENT's ambiguity and obsoletion on (what I would refer to as) obscure programs; 2, the reputation and responsibility of GWW in the case of a listed program containing malware or being created for the purpose of malware. If we would retain articles such as this, I would add a warning that indicates that the program is a third-party device and may contain malware, such as on Guide to modifying in-game graphics. However, I would say that there should be a limitation based on obscurity. If this was used by more than a couple guilds, as is the idea I seem to get from the user talk page listed somewhere above, it would have more of a shot. --חיו Chaiyo Kaldor 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think someone needs to draft a policy regarding thirdparty applications.- TheRave 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that TextMod doesn't even have its own page; it just redirects to the Guide I mentioned above. Maybe we could have a list of programs, like List of fansites? I mean, if ArenaNet-promoted websites don't even get their own article, and even articles for things like Teamspeak only redirect to Voice chat, precedent would indicate that GWW has, so far, preferred to avoid articles for specific third-party programs, even if acknowledged or promoted by ArenaNet. However, that doesn't mean they go unlisted. Of course, I'm just looking at cases and not policy, but I would think that that's a good start for policy that doesn't give a response. --חיו Chaiyo Kaldor 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The author of this article created a Tool article with external links to some Guild Wars tools (originally the one for MappingOut was an internal one, though). I'm also against it based on Tanetris' points above. Erasculio 22:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Other wikis such as Wowwiki document third party programs which can be used with the game. Doing so helps these kinds of programs and communities get off the ground. It also supports addons in game which contribute a great deal to the playability of WoW. Supporting these kinds of things by allowing them on the wiki is a good way to start. You could tag articles similair to guild articles with a warning about third party software and even have a second tag if someone wants to verify it's safe to use, and date the verification. Ultimately if someone is warned and we make distinctions between software we trust and software he haven't yet verified it's use at your own risk. Let someone else make their own decision. As for how you perceive how useful it is, from what I see it gathers a lot more information on a single map or page with an easier to navigate interface than our common wiki usages such as elite skill capping. The ability to easily track elite skill captures etc is also an improvement on the wiki. The reality is, for someone who wanted to do these things, there is a real improvement here, even if it's a small one. Personally, I played GW for a year on dial up. I would have loved something like this back then. I don't think we should disallow programs like this on the wiki cause we think they MIGHT be bad, as long as people are informed and they are scanned let people make their own decision. If something turns out to be harmful we can remove and ban it. The program is already out there, the only difference is the medium of communication. 122.104.161.96 00:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"Other wikis such as Wowwiki document third party programs which can be used with the game."

• That's nice, but irrelevant.

"Doing so helps these kinds of programs and communities get off the ground. It also supports addons in game which contribute a great deal to the playability of WoW."

• Neither of which is our goal or purpose as a wiki. Again, we don't advertise for people, we document the game. There's a huge difference, especially when ANet's stance on third party programs is "use at your own risk."

"Supporting these kinds of things by allowing them on the wiki is a good way to start."

• No, it isn't. It's a good way to pass keyloggers out to thousands of people down the road, when twenty or more users are all advertising their untested, unknown product on GWW mainspace.

"As for how you perceive how useful it is, from what I see it gathers a lot more information on a single map or page with an easier to navigate interface than our common wiki usages such as elite skill capping."

• From what I see, it doesn't. There are already in-game wiki links, including ones that appear in the help bar for skills recently used around you - so if you see someone use Eviscerate and you're like "hey where do I cap that?", you'd just hit f10 and the help menu would direct you to the eviscerate wiki page (which has boss names/locations and links, which take you to boss pages... which all have maps).

"The ability to easily track elite skill captures etc is also an improvement on the wiki."

• People track that in userspace all the time, and have been since GWiki. It's also pretty easy.

"The reality is, for someone who wanted to do these things, there is a real improvement here, even if it's a small one."

• The reality is, no, there isn't a real improvement, small or otherwise. Aside from it not achieving anything the wiki doesn't already achieve, the wiki is linked to from in-game and has no chance of coming with keyloggers or other malicious third-party stuff.

"I don't think we should disallow programs like this on the wiki cause we think they MIGHT be bad, as long as people are informed and they are scanned let people make their own decision."

• That's nice. Consensus, however, is against you.

"If something turns out to be harmful we can remove and ban it."

• Too damn late. If we've hosted something on our wiki, and only after hundreds (even thousands) of people have gotten accounts hacked do we hear about it... no, that's unacceptable. They need to be checked out thoroughly before being hosted on this wiki. Again, userspace is fine, but we're not going to advertise a product that has even the slightest chance of containing malicious code - the chance of damage is too great, and since we're the "official" wiki and the "official" stance is "if you use a third-party product and get hacked, oh well, too bad," I don't want to condone the use of any untested programs. -Auron 06:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

New Third Party Program Policy

I have begun drafting a possible policy for linking to third party programs: Guild Wars Wiki:Programs. Hopefully a number of you can help flesh it out and this situation can be resolved.- TheRave 22:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Different from Texmod how?

How is it being on the wiki different from texmod being on the wiki? Aside from the grainofsalt comment saying texmod from location x is clean, I see both having the same reasons to stay or go as each other. 122.104.161.96 00:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Textmod is referenced more here, there are more people using it, etc., etc. However, had you searched for Textmod, you would have found that it was a redirect page. That's right! Not even Textmod has its own page. I honestly can't find any other programs with their own pages; TS, Vent, and Skype all go to Voice chat. I think I already talked about this above. Just to let you know. --חיו Chaiyo Kaldor 00:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And to add on, texmod is already famous (since before Guild Wars was ever released) and vetted by the modding community. This product isn't famous by any stretch of the imagination, so any bugs/loggers/whatever else hasn't had the opportunity to be found. So aside from us not actually benefiting anyone who wants to search for elite skills and whatnot, it is a potential danger. Like Tanetris said, there's no way we can check each and every third party program that some random person throws together and wants to post on wiki. -Auron 06:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Textmod is used in conjuction with GW, not as a stand alone. -- Wyn 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

And also, we don't host an article about "TexMod", but we do host a "Guide to modifying in-game graphics" that includes texmod information primarily (but can be expanded if needed to conver other aplications). This article, on the other hand, is a "MappingOut" article, hence the "advertisement" reason for requesting deletion.--Fighterdoken 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Texmod is not older than GW btw. The author's readme file that comes with it has the release date at 19.04.2006. --Zora 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My grain of salt

I find it very interesting to see wiki commentators that have never used the software commenting on how it could steal your account. Maybe you should use it first and notice that it never ask you any questions of any sort. It does not even updates itself. It comes in a zip file which you need winzip to organize properly. Your fears are unfounded. As to policy, it seems that having an article on one helping tool opens the flood gates of Abaddon and all wiki users will have their accounts stolen because of an article running wild. Really? I'm flabbergasted by the level of communication on this forum. What is Wiki's mission? Is it helping casual players? Helping only the Pro's that has mastered the game a Zillion times? Does anyone thinks of the ordinary Joe and his problems playing and enjoying GW Campaigns? Does anyone thinks of the difficulties of a novice player to do the 4 core titles, for example? I have the questions jumping at my mind when I read this discussion. Paryll Nur 22:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Keyloggers don't need to ask for your password, nor need installation to work. Heck, some of them just need that you use the trojan software once to begin working, and then stay active until you realize something is wrong with your pc. --Fighterdoken 22:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the novice player who does not understand how a keylogger works and then believes there could not possibly be a problem in installing a GW database. For those players, using the wiki is not only a huge help, but it's also safer than relying on the same third party programs Arena Net warns people against. To allow third party programs here would only confuse more those novice players, who would see the fact they're displayed at the wiki (at the official wiki, even) as a sign that they're safe. Erasculio 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"What is Wiki's mission?" - as it was said above some times: We document the game. poke | talk 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have used it. I don't find it does anything other than what i can do with my wikipages. I also stand behind the idea that it's advertising. I would also like to know what the copyright status is on it. If it is copyrighted by the creator, the image is a violation. Quite simply we don't have any individual pages on 3rd party programs. We don't advertise. If you want the information to be available on the wiki, simply move it to your userspace. -- Wyn 23:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"We document the game." - In my opinion that's a disappointing viewpoint on what the wiki could be. I would prefer to see the wiki as being a resource for the game which could be quite a bit more useful to people than just a document of what "is". Perhaps, that's a minority view though.

Also in my opinion, there's no way to protect the mindless masses from their own stupidity and being overprotective can be detrimental. Applied in this particular case it would mean that a nice big/fat warning on the top of the page would suffice to let people know about the potential dangers. Translated to mean : In my opinion that's not a good reason not to have it. Also, I don't find "there's another way to do the same thing" to be a compelling reason not to have it either. Different people will have different tastes and preferences. Let them be so long as it isn't harmful to others. Lojiin 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just "there's another way to do the same thing," it's "there's another way to do the same thing, which is faster (search bar with redirects makes finding anything on the wiki a quick deal), safer (no way to get keylogged browsing wiki), easier (wiki is linked in-game, no need to install another program), and which complies with ANet's stance on avoiding third-party products." -Auron 04:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Choice is a good thing

Another way of doing something cannot be bad. When you consider a large quantity of people, there are the Visuals that are more comfortable with a graphically structured environnement and the Auditory that are more comfortable with the written text or the spoken word. Is it good or bad? Is it better or worse? Different people work differently with different environnements. A whole map experience is quite different from a multipage partially linked environnement. It is the same as saying that two people like to go to the forest, One likes to see the whole forest as a vista, the other one likes to see individual trees and what they contain, wildlife, etc. This is a different experience for different tastes. This is why an environnement based only on one view is called Dictatorship and one based on multiplicity called a Democracy. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Paryll Nur (talk).

That's not what is being said here. It has been the practice of this wiki to not advertise 3rd party software with their own pages. While some people may find this a useful package, it is not widely known or used, considering mention of it only shows up on one of the official fansites. You are welcome to move the page to your userspace, and talk it up there as much as you want. This is the way the wiki works, you have proposed content, and it is being discussed by the community. So far, the community consensus appears to be against keeping it. That's the way the wiki works. -- Wyn 12:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, Wyn, There were 13 peoples expressing themselves 6 seems to agree to keep the article provided that proper warning have been included, 2 are non-committal, 5 are violently against it. Hardly a majority by any way you measure it. I'm a reasonnable person and have taken the suggestion of some to heart. I have included warnings that would be more in line with the present regulations of Wiki. Paryll Nur 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, then, I say it gets moved to userspace. --JonTheMon 21:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with move. If it gets transformed into a "guide on how to use it" same as other non-strictly GW-related content (such as texmod or "GW on EEE") i could agree with it staying, but as of right now, this doesn't belong into the main namespace.--Fighterdoken 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with moving it. But for the records, we don't really have a vote for content decisions; the idea is to reach a consensus through discussion, not just asking people to raise their hands and the idea with the most supporters "wins". Erasculio 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true..... I seem to forget about that. But, moving seems like the middle ground: content stays, but isn't in mainspace. --JonTheMon 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing you...I liked your initiative of saying your opinion. And I agree, it's a good compromise. Erasculio 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning it as a vote either, and I'm sorry if I missed the 'consensus' part, when I read over what had been written it seemed to me that the feelings against keeping it in mainspace were stronger than leaving it there, of course I may have been biased, since I don't believe it belongs in mainspace. So my apologies if I offended or mislead anyone. -- Wyn 02:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we are all reasonnable people

And the consensus seems to move it out of Mainspace, can it be moved to a place more relevant than Userspace? Can it be moved to a place where it would be easily accessed by somebody doing a search? Is the panel gracious enough to provide a link to it? If it is buried under a zillion pages, it does not seem likely that anybody would find any link to it. If somebody heard the name or is looking for tools, it should be possible to find this page using a reasonnable search. Would the Panel be gracious enough to provide a link to it? Paryll Nur 04:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What Panel? Anyways, the search function of the wiki already allows users to search into "all" the wiki, userspace included if they decide so under the search options. If they are looking for information, they will find it. If they are lazy enough as to not look for it, they won't find it even if it is located in the Main Page under the quick links list.--Fighterdoken 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see a slight problem here. The simplest solution would to be to move it to Paryll Nur's userspace and have MappingOut redirect to it. However, redirects aren't hugely obvious, so it could still be perceived as a mainspace article. Another possibility is just listing it (somehow) on the Third-party program article. I dunno. --JonTheMon 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Go with Jon's option. As with fansites, links to external programs should be no longer than a simple short paragraph explaining its primary purpose, nothing else. No features list, no upcoming features, no screenshots. There is no need for us to keep track of third-party software if we're already going to link it. The reader can find out more himself/herself simply by clicking. -- ab.er.rant 07:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ab.er.rant summed it up well. A concise description, and a link to the third party program article is enough. If contributors want to know more then the link is provided so they can have a look themselves. And at most, it'll take about three clicks to get to the third-party program anyway. (Terra Xin 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

I register disagreement

This page is a link to a properly registered Usertalk page, I strongly disagree that this link should be destroyed. There are other case where a link is provided referring to a third party software ie: Wine for example. This constitute an abuse of power and unfairness in my case. I moved it out to user space as requested Wine seems to be in main space a fragrant injustice. Paryll Nur 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not having redirects to the Userspace is part of the deletion policy. Please follow the link to the policy next time so you know what to protest. Forgot to mention, your userspace page shows up in a search, anyway, so that'll be the first stop when this article and talk page get deleted. --חיו Chaiyo Kaldor 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, again, please note that there is a difference between having articles "teaching how to use 3rd party software" and articles "advertising 3rd party software without teaching anything about them".--Fighterdoken 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Move...

Since the page this talk page is associated with has been moved, I'm going to move the discussion with it, so it can all be removed from the Main namespace. The talk page should have been moved when the main page was moved. -- Wyn 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)