Talk:Kinetica (software)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kinetica (software) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
January 2015 edit
Does not appear to be a duplicate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avij81 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 15 June 2016 edit
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved as clear/uncontested consensus has been established. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 20:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
GPUdb → Kinetica (software) – Underwent a name change. Unsure if this needs more citations referring it by "Kinetica" before the move. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Move -This looks uncontroversial. More cites would be nice, but not necessary as long as the official page reflects the change.Dialectric (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Suspect reverts? edit
I was trying to work on this article to comply more with the external link guidelines. Generally there should be one link to the company official web site, but no others that promote the subject. When I found a reasonable source I converted into a citation, clearly marking press releases as press releases, and removed some that were either clearly promotional or did not mention the subject.. I also added some neutral sources that mention a competitor. Those changes have been reverted without any edit summary giving any reason. I do not want an edit war, so need a third opinion here please. W Nowicki (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Mysterav: Hi. If your purpose here is anything other than stirring up trouble then please explain here your reverts to the article. Ordinarily you would use edit summaries to explain your edits as well as taking part in the discussion rather than starting an edit war. -- intgr [talk] 22:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)