Talk:FolderSize

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Updated FolderSize Page

Hello, I merged your changes to the updated version of the article that I had in my sandbox: FolderSize. There is a lot of work done in that article so I hope you will agree on editing it instead of completely ignoring it. Please note that license to use the image in the article is granted by MindGems and confirmed by Wikipedia editor. The article is updated with extra references that are newer than the review in PCWorld. Please note that the things for speed and missing stuff from that outdated article are already fixed or implemented in the version 2.9.0.0 of the tool while the article relates to version 1.2.0.0. The revised article that I have uploaded is written in an objective way without leaning towards promotion of any kind. Even though the quotation that you have added from PCWorl about the tool being "cumbersome" is not longer valid I have merged it in the article. If you think something should be revised please feel free to do it. Allancass (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC) My last revision was undone by User_talk:OlYeller21 with the strange explanation: User_talk:OlYeller21#Why_did_you_undo_the_changes.3F[reply]

Please restore this article and apply modifications if needed. Thank you.

Strange explanation? Maybe you can share with us what you find strange about it. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Allan isn't responding, I'll copy/paste my response: "As I mentioned on your talk page immediately after I reverted your addition, you clearly have a conflict of interest here. I reverted your edit instead of marking the page indicating that an editor working on the page has a conflict of interest. Also, several additions aren't needed and are down right advertorial, such as the section on free editions. Totally unneeded. If you wish to discuss this issue, please do so on the talk page of the article." OlYeller21^Talktome 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus in the deletion log: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_January_28 that this page should be restored and it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. There was also clear explanation by S Marshall that there is nothing wrong with this article and it is not promotional nor it contains any from of spam. Please read the deletion log carefully and undo my changes. Thank you! Allancass (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't restore it until we get some things straightened out. First, I disagree. I'll regurgitate the example I already gave regarding an entire section about editions of the software - it's not needed. It seems that just about everything you've done here so far is to promote a product. Second, can you please declare your conflict of interest or should I point it out to everyone for you? OlYeller21^Talktome 22:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have not read the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_January_28. A user like you deleted this on the first place and was asked to apologize for his words and actions. I have no time to waste with another user like that - you. If you do not like a section then edit/review it, but do not spit on the work of others by completely deleting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allancass (talk • contribs) 23:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I nominate it for deletion before, I have read the deletion review. I mean and meant no disrespect to you when I felt and feel that I am doing what's best for Wikipedia by following its policies and guidelines. I'll stop beating around the bush about your COI, though. Here's the information I found in a quick search.

Press releases for FolderSize or MindGems by "Allan Cass"

Advertorial forum comments made by "Allancass"

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Removed link to ProgrammersHeaven comment as the website is apparently blacklisted.
[8]

Other

Technorati Blog claimed by Allan Cass

That's what I have so far. I can keep going if needed anyone is still unconvinced. You're obviously linked to the company and from what I've seen of your edit history, your only goal here is to promote FolderSize on Wikipedia. So, I'm sorry if I removing something that something that I feel is advertorial and you disagree. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive...you saved the world by deleting a well designed page and replacing it with almost empty page with outdated references and incorrect information! Congratulations! It was clearly explained to you that there is nothing promotional in the page and whether I am related with MindGems is not relevant and if I wanted to hide something I would not use my name as a user name. You could find some more links to fill with SPAM here ;) I am ending this conversation - people like you should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia...if you wanted to contribute something you could edit the page instead of wasting your time with such nonsense arguments, but of course your "contribution is to DELETE and then add spam links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allancass (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allan, I can see that you're upset. Please don't be. I don't think I saved anything other than what I feel is promotional text from being inserted in the article. While assuming that you were trying to hide would imply that I thought you were dumb enough to use your own name (I don't think you're dumb), I can't help but notice that you repeatedly ignored my request that you declare your conflict of interest.

I'm confused about your comment about "finding links to fill with SPAM here". There are whole teams of people and bots that search for spam links. In fact, they're the same ones that warned you on your talk page several times a few years ago.

You may end this conversation if you want, obviously, but that doesn't help you or Wikipedia. I'd be happy to edit the page with you but like I told you before, I wanted to get this COI issue out of the way first. I don't feel that my argument is nonsense either.

I suggest taking a little time to let this go then coming back. I'd be happy to help you but I'm not going to lay down while anyone adds what I feel is an advertising to Wikipedia. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take the DRV as carte blanch to use this article as a vehicle for advertising. I made it clear in the close that a balanced article was required and even edited the article to start this process off. You then went ahead and reverted me to made the article more advertorial. Well, bad luck. We don't do advertorial and if you insist on forcing it in there will be two outcomes - firstly you will get blocked and secondly someone will nominate this barely notable article for deletion and given the problems keeping this clear I'd not be surprised of it gets deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys I tried to provide a better unbiased article. I have not restored the original the way it was and I also merged the new stuff from you. It seems to me that you have a bit too negative attitude here while I was trying to help. If you think that I can contribute let me know Allancass (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Folder Size.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]