Talk:RJ TextEd

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RJ TextEd article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

promotional editing

Author of RJ TextEd allowed me to create an article on wikipedia proof link - http://www.rjsoftware.se/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=4843&sid=8f1e1883d49e7a028715a97b96154c4f#4843

There is no explicit release of the text under a free license. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or promote a product. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia has a lot of articles about the text editor (PSPad, Notepad, AkelPad and others)? What is this convenient and freeware editor is worse? Is RJ TextEd not entitled to become a well-known (and therefore better because of the emergence of new users) because of Wikipedia? --User:Se7h (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Wikipedia is not the place to become more well-known by advertising, it is only for established concepts that are already well known. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only ask: why RJ TextEd can not have articles on Wikipedia? --Se7h (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the copyrighted contents --Se7h (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can not show the Features of the program? --Se7h (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article was edited and presented in the required form, please remove the tag COI --Se7h (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links you've given so far, and your editing history demonstrate that your interest in this topic is promotional, rather than being neutral. TEDickey (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation?

Most of the "references" are from download sites for the subject, and can hardly be considered WP:RS … see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ TextEd (2nd nomination) … must we have another WP:AfD? — 70.21.12.213 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it contains only the objective facts about the program, with proof-links. It is easy to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.112.0 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it contains only the objective facts about the program, with proof-links. It is easy to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7h (talk • contribs) 22:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the previous deletion discussion, objectivity wasn't the issue, notability was. That hasn't been addressed in any way by the current incarnation of the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

Help me make the article better, it just so tiny