Nevoexpo

Hello, Nevoexpo and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello Nevoexpo, are you an expert with regard to ZeuAPP and/or the webmaster of http://zeusoft.net/ ? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I know the Founder of ZeuAPP however i cannot call myself an expert at it. I can call myself an expert on computers and websites and as a person who has expertise and knowledge in those fields, when i give advice for free programs and alternatives to commercial products like Microsoft's Office or Adobe's CS products. I think about this program because alot of my friends cannot afford to pay for programs like that and most of them are new to the computer so they don't even know how to download the install for those programs and it gets to the point where i have to do it for them, either physically or remotely. Thats why i am adding that program to the article, because as a example of Free software, that is perfect and it features over 182 programs and authors which on its own counts for something.--Nevoexpo (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered adding the program to List of free and open source software packages ? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually have already added it to that list under the Global section. :D

"ZeuAPP - Free software program which automatically installs a large list of open source and/or freeware from over 182 applications and 15 different categories based on the user's choice"--Nevoexpo (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that would be a good place to get something listed and you've already done so. I think where things are coming into conflict for you is on the "Free Software" article, which is more of an article on the concept and history of free software than a place to include individual free software applications. The section that lists a few examples says "Some of the best-known examples include..." and then it goes on to list things like major operating systems, compilers, libraries, databasing, etc. Do you feel that ZeuAPP is at a comparable level of stature, a likewise best-known example, etc? AzureCitizen (talk)

I strongly feel that it is a comparable level with the current examples listed because not only does it feature some of the examples listed however it also features hundreds more. I believe that because it features so many programs and authors about free and open source programs, it deserves to be in the article and should be acknowledged because its already a part of history and even a Microsoft Partner. What I just don't understand is why these moderators are going out of there way to not acknowledge what ZeuAPP is. I don't see why they can't appreciate the program for what it is? It helps anyone who is new to the computer or with a small pocket get what they need for their Windows operating system for free... --Nevoexpo (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you're frustrated. Try to understand that the moderators aren't actually "against you", however,and people's perceptions vary greatly. On Wikipedia, whenever something is challenged in an article, the burden of inclusion falls to the party making the assertion (in this case, that the program is comparable to the "best known examples of free software"). This isn't hard to do if you can find reliable secondary sources that demonstrate that. Without such sources, however, it ends up falling into the realm of simply being an "opinion" (no matter how strongly one may feel that it is "true") as opposed to being a verifiable fact. What you'll probably want to do at this point is to search for those kinds of sources and present them to the folks who are opposing your edits on Free Software at the article's Talk Page located here: Talk:Free software. Then you'll have a chance to convince others that ZeuAPP is so prominent and important that it belongs in a listing of the "best known examples" of free software. Does that help put things in perspective? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, i have and i presented video sources and said that video will always be a more reliable source then text. They still refuse to accept it as a source. I just need to find more people to help me on my case here and find every source i can because this is ridiculous. I listed atleast over 20 sources and heres what one said "These are all blogs, software repositories, and youtube accounts, none of which are considered reliable sources." Which is insulting because he didn't bother to look at all of them.--Nevoexpo (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, that may help bring your sourcing problem into focus and make it easier for you to find acceptable sources that can not be easily dismissed. You may want to look at some other articles too as examples, and note that blogs and youtube videos are routinely discounted as not being acceptable sources. Also, when you're new here, it's understandable that might feel insulted but things go more smoothly if you assume good faith. Trust me! AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help, I am going to repost it here and keep adding to it. I think ill find people bound to help me with this and go through the links im finding and hopefully finding other "Reliable sources". :P

--Nevoexpo (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, hope that was of use to you. One of the discriminating factors you'll want to apply is to look for sources that make the case that ZeuAPP is among the "best known examples" of free software - if a given source doesn't really support that claim, it's not very useful. Also, you could try to point to statistical evidence, but I did a brief search on Google just now and it wasn't very promising. For example, when googling "ZeuAPP", I got about ~50K hits, while a search for "BSD" returned ~75M hits, "GNU" had ~200M, and "Linux" had more than 850M (that's a ratio of something like 17,000 to 1, etc). AzureCitizen (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nevoexpo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will abide by the polices and continue trying to win my case with "Reliable Sources".

Decline reason:

Although I could say you were not well-warned about edit-warring You're adding gigantic WP:PUFFERY to an article, which makes your edits highly promotional in nature. I have included a welcome menu at the top. During the rest of this short 24hr block, you should read and better understand this encyclopedia (not "yellow pages") (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.