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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:14, 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 188.8.131.52 (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
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 ??) 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC) i cant move it down 220.127.116.11 (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)
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
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:   "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)
I suspect you are right that "it needs a cryptographic hash".
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
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)
Edit to Dual elliptic curve deterministic random bit generator
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  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)
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. ï¿½ (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have already explained my objections at Talk:CDFS and so did user . You have been invited to discuss it there multiple times. -- intgr [talk] 15:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! Regarding 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.about not creating potentially misleading redirects, I totally agree and here's an additional explanation... I've created
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 18.104.22.168 (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)
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.) 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)
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)