Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MidiNotate Composer: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[MidiNotate Composer]]: spam |
|||
Line 11:
**Rewriting during this voting process is actually encouraged; much better to rewrite now than to recreate the page later. Thanks for checking. [[User:Bunchofgrapes|Bunchofgrapes]] 23:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Spam. [[User:Amren|Amren]] <sup><small><font color="#63B8FF">[[User_talk:Amren|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
*'''Rewrite''' Ok, I can definitely rewrite it, but I'd appreciate some input. I apparently shouldn't use existing articles as a model, because I did that and it's caused the ruckus :) What are your suggestions? I'll start with 1) use third person rather than second person 2)more background on the evolution of the software 3) noted capabilities. Does this seem appropriate? Please remember, this article is listed in the category of "music software", and you can check out the other articles in the category. To my eye, this one follows the same model, so I'm honestly trying to find out what the major problems are here so we can make this an informational entry. I see part of the strength of the Wikipedia as giving current information about a myriad of topics, as well as resources related to those topics (hence the "external links" sections). I want to do this right! Thanks. [[User:Sherryc|Sherryc]] 12:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
| |||