User talk:Intgr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here rather than on your talk page, unless you indicate otherwise. Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.



If I don't respond in a reasonable time frame or if you have something particularly urgent, you can try e-mailing me.

Fushi Copperweld[edit]

Excuse me, what links did you remove and why? You suggest I was link spamming. In fact, I was not. I was listing the patent holder for Copper-clad steel manufacturing on relevant wiki entries. The only patent holder, and the only company (who in fact the Process of copper-clad steel is named after, Copperweld) to even be able to liscense the product, as a reference on an article about their invention. I just don't understand, please help me to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.137.164 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:74.136.137.164‎ -- intgr [talk] 09:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain then why other manufactures are listed on the same pages? Perhaps those should be removed too. On every page.. at least according to your logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.137.164 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There is 1 other link on only 1 of the pages. I let it slide because the page has some claim of being informative, it's not a company that's consistently involved in Wikipedia-doctoring, and it wasn't added by a repeated linking guideline violator. But yes, it may well be removed.
PS: These are Wikipedia guidelines, not "my logic". -- intgr [talk] 11:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Gnome3 IS NOT removable[edit]

hi, by personal experience i can state that REALY removing the gnome activity log with/witout zietgeist is NOT possible, unless you prefer a dead end computer in TTY1 having NO desktop at all, at least not reachable for the USER, the HUMAN, from which a computer is just a machinarial slave !!! So please do not remove EVERYTHING becouse you are to UNAWARE off the REALITY out side off your own narrow desktop...socialy spoken, that is ... go out side, have fresh air, be alive , and consider that you can revert your revertion ,..., why all or nothing, if a link is not aproopriete to YOUR standard !! so please READ what people say. THATS IS HUMAN !!! (i program in Z80 assembly since about ehe,....1990 ??) 95.96.201.236 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC) i cant move it down 95.96.201.236 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, you cannot "remove" Zeitgeist entirely because Gnome applications are dynamically linked to the library. You can disable Zeitgeist by going to Gnome system settings, under Privacy, click "Usage & History", set it Off and Clear Recent History. There is no reason to remove it.
I am not going to re-add that text because it's written in inappropriate tone and consists of mostly unjustified claims. Zeitgeist does not upload any logs anywhere. Zeitgeist does not know anything about calls since there is no phone functionality in Gnome (Note that your cell phone probably does log them and most users consider that a useful feature). I think GPS/location functionality was planned, but never actually implemented in this software, though I could be wrong here. The Ars article with RMS that you linked is about Unity's Amazon search feature, nothing to do with Zeitgeist or Activity Journal, so no relevance to this article; it's already very well covered at Unity (user interface)#Privacy controversy. The other linked article gives inaccurate advice. First, the path is wrong; it should be /home/user/.local/... with the dot. And you can't use "rm" on a directory without the -r flag. And even if it was accurate, I don't think it would quality as an appropriate external link.
Sorry, I just don't see anything worth keeping from this edit. In the future, please provide proper sources for your claims. -- intgr [talk] 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Moon[edit]

Thanks for message, on the strength of which I took a closer look at the article. The lead is a bit spammy, but fixable. The rest of the lengthy text consists of character and episode summaries which are entirely unsourced and appear in identical words all over the web. There are two possibilities

  • The article is copied from another site and is a copyright infringement
  • All the sites copied from Wikipedia, and the unreferenced text is OR

Perhaps I didn't give the most appropriate tag, although there is no referenced indication of why it is notable, but this appears to be either copyrighted text or OR, and has virtually no content beyond that. I'm not persuaded that there is any point going to AfD on notability grounds when there are more obvious issues. There are too many of this sort of articles where editors just lift content from elsewhere instead of adding referenced text written in their own words. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd think other sites have copied Wikipedia, but it's impossible for anyone to research or dispute this because -- guess what -- you deleted it! :)
In any case, if this article is to be deleted, then a summary of it should get merged back into Jonti Picking (which itself isn't a great article, but certainly notable)
The character descriptions and episode summaries may be more relevant at http://weeblsstuff.wikia.com/wiki/On_the_Moon
-- intgr [talk] 11:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, as you have pointed out, you can read the text at the weeblsstuff site, so you know what's missing. That site says it gets its content from Wikipedia, so we are back to square one. Either the large amount of deleted text is copied from an as yet unidentified source, or it's massive unsourced OR. I'd be prepared to recreate without the disputed text (ie with the character names and episode titles, but no details) but I suspect that the first thing that would happen would be that all the unreferenced text would be replaced, still without any indication of a source. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
As I said, your deletion is preventing me from knowing for certain, but I suspect weeblsstuff.wikia.com doesn't contain most of the content that was on the Wikipedia page. You also didn't address the point about merging a summary from "On the Moon" into Jonti Picking.
Unsourced content and original research is a content dispute and is not an argument for article deletion.
Look, we have two delayed deletion processes for a reason -- to let people (in particular non-administrators involved in editing a page) review the content and decide what to do with it. It also gives a chance for editors to search references and establish notability. I can understand the value of CSD on new page patrol where articles need to be deleted as fast as they're created. But using it for established articles, where multiple people have spent considerable effort on, is not appropriate. It's not like articles of this volume are popping up all the time.
It was my bad to request AFD. A PROD is probably more appropriate for situations like this. -- intgr [talk] 13:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I think there are two issues here, which are becoming confused. Notability is a matter for prod/AfD, I agree. Content, if it is copyright or OR is a matter for speedy deletion. I've already offered to recreate without the disputed content, which would give you a number of options
  • Leave as is, given it's been around for a while
  • Then nominate for AfD or Prod on the notability issue (I have no views on this)
  • Add back the removed content with references to proper RS sources
What I'm not prepared to do is to recreate with the OR/copyright text intact. Your call, really Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Django MVC[edit]

Discussion on Django page. Hi, I am a little new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if I am doing something not right here. Anyway, I am not new to Django, though. I have been using it for all my web development work for 5 years and I found that its framework MVT is not merely an MVC with a twist. I have used MVC framework in other languages as well and they are quite different from MVT in django. I think changing this to reflect the way django community view itself should serve Wikipedia's best interest in looking more authoritative on the subject matter. I'd like to hear your point of view as well but as a heavy user of django framework, I find that current page needs some revisions to make it look right. Kontee (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, first please make yourself familiar with the verifiability policy of Wikipedia. To prevent people from arguing about opinions, we have a policy to require sources.
There are two official Django sources stating that it's an MVC framework and saying that the difference is mostly terminology: [1] [2] "Django follows this MVC pattern closely enough that it can be called an MVC framework"
As far as I can tell, the term "MTV" is invented entirely by Django and isn't even a proper class of frameworks. Stating that it's "an MTV framework" will only confuse people.
Now, the article could indeed use some additional explanation of Django's terminology. But please don't remove statements that say it's an MVC framework.
If you disagree, you're welcome to start a new discussion at Talk:Django (web framework) to get more opinions. (Feel free to copy-paste this topic there to start off). There was an earlier discussion at Talk:Django (web framework)#MVC pattern. -- intgr [talk] 09:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rabin fingerprint[edit]

I suspect you are right that "it needs a cryptographic hash"[3].

Forgive me for reverting your edit mentioning "any cryptographic hash" back to "any hash function".

It is not clear to me why LBFS needs a cryptographic hash in the particular part of LBFS that uses the Rabin fingerprint.

I hope we can make the Rabin fingerprint article clearer to me and other readers. (Perhaps Talk:Rabin fingerprint is a better place to continue this conversation). --DavidCary (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Rabin fingerprint#Cryptographic or any hash? -- intgr [talk] 17:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Postgresql upcoming features[edit]

Do you realise I just renewed the earlier existing section "upcoming features"?

Such a section was there for 9.3, and that part is now of course integrated as 9.3 stuff.

Why are you for removing that section?

Kweetal 10:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware that there was a section like this for 9.3 and I think it needs to be deleted as well. Because Wikipedia is not the place for changelogs. See WP:NOT, particularly WP:CHANGELOG and WP:CRYSTAL. I am removing it now so that people don't spend any more time working on something that's not appropriate on Wikipedia.
The whole PostgreSQL article is a series of arbitrary lists and badly needs a clean-up. -- intgr [talk] 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
CRYSTAL doesn't apply to the near future (with a set date), at least (notable) movies. [It's a question if future releases of PostgreSQL is notable..] I guess planned features can be cancelled (at any time?). In case they are in beta I would say including is ok. As the upcoming release (as all) is open source it is released in some sense (and could be used, but not recommended for production, while testing is ok and recommended). Really all committed code is release (but not notable). Where should we draw the line (believe will end up in next release), beta, release candidate (alpha?). comp.arch (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Note moved discussion to [4]. Stumbled in here and thought I was at the PostgreSQL talk page.. comp.arch (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Dual elliptic curve deterministic random bit generator[edit]

Why do you think adding "According to Snowden documents" is necessary for WP:NPOV? Nobody has disputed that NSA paid RSA Security $10 million to set it as the default, and RSA Security would surely have disputed it if it was not true. I would rather say that adding "According to Snowden documents" adds a false sense of a disputed fact. Thue (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. At first it seemed to me that RSA did deny it, but reading their response [5] closer, they actually didn't deny receiving $10M for changing the defaults; they merely said that they didn't know it was a backdoor (heh, willful ignorance). -- intgr [talk] 02:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I have so for only seen two news sites on the Internet which reads RSA's blog completely correctly (parse exactly what RSA is claiming and not claiming), and so many misses - I have been emailing them corrections... The one who gets it most wrong is shamefully BBC News, but even Ars Technica is wrongly claiming that RSA asserted the deal wasn't secret :(. It is really rather ridiculous - trust is essential in RSA Security's business, but RSA is doing everything they can to knowingly deceive and mislead their customers, in a way that quickly becomes very obvious and very public, and will surely backfire. Thue (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Hxxp for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hxxp is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hxxp until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. � (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

CDFS[edit]

Hi. I don't understand why are you keep deleting my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.34.13.155 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained my objections at Talk:CDFS and so did user WOFall. You have been invited to discuss it there multiple times. -- intgr [talk] 15:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

kpatch article[edit]

Hello there! Regarding your note about not creating potentially misleading redirects, I totally agree and here's an additional explanation... I've created kpatch article as a redirect back at the time when kpatch and kGraft were announced, and my intentions were to turn kpatch redirect into a stub shortly after. Though, kpatch as a project went pretty much silent for a few months thus it hasn't reached the required notability level until a few weeks ago when the RHEL 7.0 was released, so the whole thing became postponed and here we are.

Point taken for the future, thank you! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

SHA3 removal[edit]

Please prove your statement of bazillion sites like that by just showing me one LIKE that. The tool (leventozturk.com/engineering/sha3/) is complete,, tested, easy to use, free,configurable and provides detailed information about each step of the SHA-3 process. I have developed the hardware version of it using this tool. I think it would be very helpful practically to people who is looking into the mechanics of the SHA. Well even if not mine, at least add one working online tool out of bazillion for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.74.31 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you before. But here you go. Also see WP:NOTLINK, WP:SPAM, WP:EL. Adding lots of links to the same website, presumably your own, is considered spam and an abuse of Wikipedia. The fact that you did it 1 2 3 4 times and they were reverted every time, should be a clear message that these sorts of changes are not welcomed here. -- intgr [talk] 12:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Demoscene[edit]

If you can move your Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demoscene discussion to Talk:Demoscene, I'll respond there. (Better to have conversations in a place where the talk history is accessible.) I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar  05:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: I have moved it to Talk:Demoscene#Solutions for demogroup notability. -- intgr [talk] 08:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cache memory[edit]

I suggest to remove the content of "CPU cache" because it is a subset of a new the description “Cache memory” and to redirect "CPU cache" to "Cache memory" - Ferry24.Milan (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I have copied your comment to Draft talk:Cache memory and replied there, to keep the discussion in one place. -- intgr [talk] 15:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed external links[edit]

1. frontend development tools:

Hi,

The reason why I added my link is that your page about frontend development tools doesn't really display any tools. Thereby, the article I added is very reliable since I asked 56 frontend development experts (for example Jeffrey Zeldman, Eric A. Meyer & Jeremy Keith) which tools they.

I really think my resource belongs on that wikipedia page since your visitors are searching for information about frontend development tools, and now they only find means like html/css.

Thanks in advance, Bauke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broesink (talkcontribs) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Broesink: I agree, that Wikipedia article is bad, but these links are arguably not appropriate. You, as the author of given source, have a conflict of interest and should not be adding these links. You have attempted to add the same link to multiple articles, and re-added after being reverted, which is spamming. Sorry, all the odds are stacked against you. -- intgr [talk] 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Clear. Didn't mean to spam btw, I am new to wikipedia and made some mistakes. I do think it is strange that when I create an article which has way more valuable information than your wikipedia article, you type it as 'conflict of interest' but when you add it as a resource, the visitors might actually learn something more then the basics. Nevertheless, thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broesink (talkcontribs) 15:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

2. Numeral system edit by DavidRabahy

How is one meant to make material like Google sheets available while avoiding self-promotion? Such tools can be highly enlightening; sometimes more than static text in the article. –DavidRabahy (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:SHA-2#External link to spreadsheet by DavidRabahy. -- intgr [talk] 23:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Pioneer anomaly revert[edit]

Hi, re your revert on Pioneer anomaly. I agree that being published in a leading journal is of course relevant. However, for this paper I specifically searched crossref and the PRL website here and could not find the paper, apart from the arxiv preprint. As the arxiv paper states it was withdrawn it seems to me that the paper was never published in PRL. Do you know the exact citation of the published paper (the original page given doesn't match the PRL ranges in 2003 or 2004)? Otherwise it seems that {{cite arxiv}} is appropriate. Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rjwilmsi: Hi. Sorry, I think I misunderstood the edit summary of your original edit. I also found this paper saying that the Anderson et al. paper appeared in PRL, but on a second thought that citation was probably copied straight from Wikipedia. I reverted my reversion. -- intgr [talk] 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Largest prime number/Collatz conjecture[edit]

Dear Intgr,

My contributions to the pages 'Collatz conjecture' and 'Largest prime number' have been removed on the grounds that these have been considered self-promotion. I just wanted to say that I am very disappointed. I think my contribution to the 'Collatz conjecture' was removed by somebody else so I will only be talking about 'Largest prime number' here.

I would like to say that I have spent a lot of time/made a lot of effort obtaining the results I have added to the page; and I had added to the pages to share these results with the community. Yes, there is nothing special about the base-10 number system, but I think it is still nice to see/confirm that we have a uniform distribution of digits. I ,myself, certainly was curious to see what the result of the histogram analysis would be; and I believe there may be others that would have been too. I really do not understand why you have considered this to be self-promotion when I was actually only sharing some (although not ground breaking as such) properties I found of the largest prime number with the community.

Also I would like to point out that you have removed the link I had at 'external links' to the actual digits of the prime number with another link (on the ground that mine was 'not neutral' just because they were on my web-page) but the number the link you have replaced it with gives has twice as many digits as there should be and it ends in 6 which means it would be divisible by 2 and hence can not actually be a prime number. I am sure you would have been disappointed too if you were in my place and very discouraged to make future contributions as well.

I would have been happy to work with you any issues you may have pointed out regarding my contributions rather than delete/classify them as 'self-promotion'.

Kind regards, Baris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bariskanber (talkcontribs) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

While self-promotion was my first cause for removing, it's not the only reason why this content is inappropriate. It also goes against Wikipedia's guidelines about no original research and self-published sources.
"To share these results with the community" is the wrong reason to edit Wikipedia — your intention should be to improve the encyclopedia based on knowledge already out there, not to publish your findings. And when having discussions about what material to include/exclude, it should be about the merits of the source, not about "I spent a lot of effort on it". This behavior goes against the conflict of interest guideline.
And speaking of the source, if it were some more thorough study into the uniformity/randomness properties of the structure of the number, it might have something going for it. But simply counting the base-10 digits, I just can't get excited about.
I understand that you're disappointed, but surely that's not a reason to compromise Wikipedia's values.
You are right about the new link not actually containing a prime number. That's weird, I got the link from the original prime announcement press release. Thanks for pointing it out, I will remove it. -- intgr [talk] 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the whole removal. @Bariskanber: Please make a talk page suggestion when you want to add your own research or links to your own website. You can use {{Request edit}}, but if the work has not been published by a reliable source then it will probably be declined. By the way, http://www.mersenne.org/primes/perfect/perfect57885161.txt is the associated perfect number as the url indicates. It is even and has twice as many digits as the prime. http://www.mersenne.org/primes/?press=M57885161 correctly states which link is the prime (http://www.mersenne.org/primes/digits/M57885161.txt) and perfect number. But I don't think the article should have an external link directly to a file with the decimal expansion. The announcement with various information, including a link to the file, is already in the external links. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi @PrimeHunter:, thanks for your comments. Since this was my first (failed) Wikipedia contribution, I was a novice. I do recognize now what can and can not be considered for addition in the encyclopedia. Regarding the link which, as you say, gave the associated perfect number; yes I do recognize that mersenne.org is not going to give something wrong, it is just that the title of the external link (digits of the prime) and what it actually gave (digits of the associated perfect number) did not coincide. As you have rightly pointed out, there probably isn't any need to have such a link anyway as the relevant information can already be found in the external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.181.215 (talk)

Eric Vanderburg[edit]

Thanks for the feedback on the Eric Vanderburg page. You highlighted the methods I used to solve the orphan link problem as tendentious editing. I am about to start working on another page and I want to avoid doing anything that might violate Wikipedia rules. I have read the section on tendentious editing but would you be able to give me some other guidance on how to best contribute here at Wikipedia? Professornova (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I find that there is sufficient evidence of you having a conflict of interest. I am not going to help you game Wikipedia's policies. We do not welcome PR doctors. -- intgr [talk] 02:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I am shocked at your reaction. I love Wikipedia and want to help make it better. I am not trying to game anyone or cause problems and am very sorry to hear that you feel that way. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused you. Professornova (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Professornova: If you want to be taken seriously, you should start by explaining the discrepancies pointed out by me and John Nagle on Talk:Eric Vanderburg and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Eric Vanderburg, instead of appealing to emotions. Or, if we're correct, you could disclose your conflict of interest and we can have a discussion about how to proceed from here. -- intgr [talk] 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I commented on both pages.  :) Professornova (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format in Linux articles[edit]

Hello! Any chances, please, for you to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Date format in release history sections of Linux articles and possibly comment there by providing your point of view? The whole thing is pretty much poorly discussed with only a few editors actually discussing it, while it seems to be affecting more than a few articles (and the date format seems to be extending beyond the tables into references, please see history of the Linux distribution article). Any contributions to the discussion would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

EspoCRM[edit]

It was wrong to post a direct link to EspoCRM website. I'm not a native speaker and it was hard to create EspoCRM article on wikipedia. EspoCRM is open source product. We often receive messages from happy users. We have started to develop EspoCRM one year ago. The first release was 03\07\2014. Number of EspoCRM downloads is 8,605. Yesterday we have tried to create an article but admins removed it EspoCRM. I ask your help. What shall we do now? Please give an advice.

— Alexei.av (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alexei.av: I see, many new users fall into this trap of creating an article without realizing how strict some Wikipedia guidelines are. But following these, you should be fine:
  1. Every article must pass the notability guideline, citing multiple (at least two) independent reliable sources, with significant coverage of the subject (preferably full length articles about the project). No blogs, no official statements, no sponsored articles, no mailing list posts etc. If you can't do that, then it's just too soon to have an article.
  2. Stick to neutrally describing the facts. No lists of awards, no praise, no unnecessary adjectives, nothing you'd expect to see on a sales brochure. Only say what's backed up by sources. If that means your article is just one or two paragraphs long, no problem -- article length is not a factor in deciding whether to keep or delete. We call these "stub" articles, but that's not a criticism.
  3. Since you use the word "we", I presume you're affiliated with the project, so you have a conflict of interest, it's recommended not to edit the article. But if you stay neutral, demonstrate good faith and disclose your affiliations (preferably on the article's talk page and your user page), people won't mind. Just be extra careful with neutrality.
-- intgr [talk] 20:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@Intgr: Thank you so much I really appreciate it.
-- Alexei.av (talk) 8:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed links from keylogger topic[edit]

I am writing to you regarding the links that are deleted. I would like to point out that the document that I set as the source is useful for a topic on which I am adding text on the grounds that it does not contain spam links, but only useful and informative links on high authority sites that are not used for the sale, but for help to expande the thematic content. Please re-consider your decision and a set document because I believe that there are users whose content of the document would be very useful. If it is possible I would like your suggestions of pages on which the document is most appropriate. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyVi (talkcontribs)

@MagyVi: I would like to point out that the same link/reference:
  • appeared in 6 different articles
  • within just 2 days
  • added by 3 different editors
  • one of whom has a provable connection to the company hosting the link.
Typically it means that such editors are not here for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you are affiliated with the company then you're expected to abide by the conflict of interest guidelines. In particular, you should not add links to your company to articles, but you're welcome to propose adding it on the talk pages of certain articles. Not to get your hopes up though, such edit requests are not always honored. -- intgr [talk] 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Included in" vs. "included into"[edit]

Hello! Regarding your edit that changed "kpatch has been included into RHEL 7" to "kpatch has been included in RHEL 7", here are a few thoughts from my side... While the grammar analysis you've provided states that "included into" is entirely incorrect, both forms sound correct to me. In particular, "A was included in B" sounds to me like A and B joined from the beginning to form a brand new entity C; on the other hand, "A was included into B" sounds to me like B already existed and A was added later. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find a good reference to cover all that, and the closest thing I've found is this page from one book. Please have a look – it isn't that I'm objecting against using "kpatch has been included in RHEL 7" in the first place, it's more about a potentially interesting difference in meanings. :) Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dsimic: Not totally sure, but "included into" just sounds wrong to me. I see your point about them having a slightly different meaning, but without your explanation I would not have made that connection. If that's what you're trying to express, how about using a more straightforward phrase like "added to"? -- intgr [talk] 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Please, let's also keep in mind that I'm not a native English speaker, what could easily make uncommon or weird constructs more sensible to me. :) I'm fine with keeping "kpatch has been included in RHEL 7" – kpatch has been shipped as part of the initial production RHEL 7 release instead of being added in some later release/update. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dsimic: I'm not a native speaker either, but that doesn't stop me from being a grammar nazi. ;) -- intgr [talk] 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing wrong in insisting on correct grammar. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Kallithea (software)[edit]

In July you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, saying that more sources are available, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)