User talk:Jec

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

HTTP pipelining[edit]

Hi Jec. I'm trying to understand your undo [1] of my edit. You gave no comment, and I noticed that you are the author of Polipo (congrats BTW). That does mean that you may have a WP:COI - where it says people are generally discouraged from editing your own topic. Widefox (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Your edit linked to the Polipo page on Wikipedia, which is completely unrelated to the Polipo proxy.
Feel free to either create a Polipo (proxy) page, or link to my web page, I don't care either way. Since I cannot create the Polipo (proxy) page myself, for the very reasons you point out, I've reverted your edit to point at my web page. --Jec (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
that's ok. There's no need to create the article name with (proxy) as as far as I can see, this is the prime use of the term Polipo, so the article name is correct, and is waiting for someone (like me) or anyone else to create it, and it'll be a useful article, which is why I'm creating links ready for it. I'll revert right now. Widefox (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
sorry to come down on you, but I would appreciate it if you could let other editors deal with the topic from now on, due to the WP:COI. cheers, Widefox (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. Fixing a bug in a page, such as a dangling link, does not constitute conflict of interest.--Jec (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Your understanding of red links in Wikipedia is incorrect, please see Wikipedia:Red link. Recreating the link to your website is not appropriate and actually getting in the way of my discussed advancing of the articles, including creating an article for Polipo. I have reverted my edit. Please stop, and also discuss before continuing to edit again. I've created the article now at Polipo. I repeat, please refrain from editing articles about your own software due to WP:COI. Widefox (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The current version of the HTTP_pipelining page is fine with me.--Jec (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

IPv6 Packet[edit]

Please review my new page about IPv6 Packets. This page is intended to replace the section in IPv6 about the IPv6 packet (which was copied to use as a starting point), for which a more concise summary should be written.

Since the IPv6 page is to be converted (slowly) to a page that is written more summary-style, I felt that having a detailed description of IPv6 headers on that page would not do the subject proper credit if written as just a summary, and too lengthy if done right. I created a new page for this subject so a proper discussion about all that pertains to the header (and payload) could take place. The last subsections need more work, but I don't feel I have enough experience to write them. This should be done by others, I guess.

In the section about the payload the text of the Jumbogram page is copied (and slightly edited). It is my opinion that, after this page is well established in the main space, the wiki on Jumbograms may be removed, because the term is discussed here with more context. But I like to hear you view on this, so please comment. —— Dandor iD (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat disappointed with your work, this time. You've really been sloppy and imprecise.
I suggest fixing the part that speaks of the link layer, then moving the article to the main space, and working on it there. Oh, and I oppose removing the Jumbogram article.Jec (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I never expected (like it seems you do) to deliver a first draft that is highly accurate and spot-on. The precision of my earlyer work lies in the fact that most of it was editorial stuff (cut and paste from the main page); this time it is mostly original work. I have been reading and reading again (96% of my time) and writing down what I could make of it (4%). I am glad you're back, so you could share your knowledge (as can other knowledgeable persons). I am not an expert, I am trying to become one.
You asked me to review your work, which is why I was somewhat surprised when it turned out it needs to be mostly rewritten from scratch. And I still think you've been sloppy, even for a first draft.Jec (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
As for the link-layer stuff: you are right that it is somewhat meagre and incomplete. That is because my knowledge of this is limited. I do think, however, that the subject itself is to the point and noteworthy. I can do no more than this, so if you think that it is a prerequisite for the move to main space, I have to disappoint you. I suggest we move the page anyhow and invite others to contribute. I guess pages have been started with less content...
Dump it, you're overloading the page. THe page should have enough information to allow people to go on with the RFCs, it does not need to paraphrase all of the information in the RFCs.
You should also dump the parts about IPSec. Jec (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
If you think the Jumbogram page has a right to be there: surprising but cool. There are some things about the page that could be improved, I think, but I will use that page's talk to discuss that.—— Dandor iD (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrzej Krzysztof Wróblewski[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Andrzej Krzysztof Wróblewski. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Partly done, looking for more references.Jec (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ads[edit]

Dear Jec,

Wikipedia is supposed to be an ad-free site, but first of all, a site - which means that we need money. Since we are completely independent and we refuse ads, we have to ask Wikipedians and readers if they want to fund us: evertything is payed by the community for the community.

If you get bored - I can understand that ! - just click on the cross on the right top corner and I will disappear forever :-)

Money is not evil as long as we use it as a mean to achieve our goals: sharing the knowledge and make it free ; and we won't be able to achieve them without any money...

Best wishes,

Remi Mathis (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:Remi_Mathis#Obnoxious_ads Jec (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tixati[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tixati requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheChampionMan1234 01:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion duly contested. Jec (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The usual criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is explained here. Very basically, we only summarise information that's already published in reliable sources that're independent of the subject. We do this to ensure both that our information is verifiable, and that it can be written neutrally. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers, WilyD 07:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. I was very careful to only include verifiable information on the Tixati page, and to exclude any information I didn't have independent sources for. What is more, the page was deleted and my arguments against the deletion are no longer accessible -- and I haven't seen any replies to my comments. Please explain why you ignored my contestation, and why exactly you deleted the Tixati page. Jec (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
There's a list of speedy deletion (deletions which can be performed without discussion) here. Criterion A7 allows for the deletion of articles about a "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" which "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Tixati met that criterion, and someone requested the deletion. Since you response didn't indicate there was any reason to think it was a correctable problem, I didn't see any reason to deny the request. The real crux of what gets kept, and what gets deleted is explained here. Articles should cite sources that're independent of the subject, that're reliable, and that go into some depth to establish the notability of the topic. (And ensure the information is fairly reliable). Tixati only referenced it's own website. WilyD 14:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Tixati only referenced it's own website. And of course you could not have asked me for further references -- you needed to delete the page without any discussion? Please reinstate the page, and I'll add references to reliable third-party sources.Jec (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I've placed the article at User:Jec/Tixati. Probably you should read over Wikipedia:Your first article. Once the article is suitable for the mainspace, go ahead and move it there. Any other questions, please ask. WilyD 18:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's likely to survive a deletion discussion (mostly per Lukeno's comments), but I think it's unlikely to be speedily deleted at this point. If you're concerned about the article being kept long term, it may be worth your time to keeping looking for sources. It's also worth noting that people are typically more helpful and cooperative if you're pleasant to them, rather than randomly slinging insults and the like. WilyD 10:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Current version[edit]

Hello Jec. I've spotted this page in the WP:NPP, and I'm not convinced that this program is notable per WP:NSOFTWARE (let alone WP:GNG). At the moment, I can't see any WP:RS on this program either in the article, or in a Google search: Bittorent.org and Torrent Freak are nowhere near reliable sources, Tech Support Alert isn't a reliable source (although by no means is it a bad source), and Ghacks is a blog, so isn't a reliable source either. As you're currently very active on improving this article, I shan't nominate it for deletion just yet, but I will warn you, I'm watchlisting it, and if in the next couple of days I don't feel you've established notability well enough, I will take the article to WP:AFD (that's not a threat, it's just a statement of fact). Regards, Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Luke, and thanks for the advance warning.
Bittorrent.org is the official repository for BitTorrent-related specifications. Torrentfreak is probably the main BitTorrent-related publication for the general public -- their journalistic standards are impeccable, and as far as I'm aware, they've never been caught publishing a wrong information. No opinion about Support Alert. On the other hand, I agree about you wrt. ghacks.
As far as notability of the subject matter -- as mentioned in the article, Tixati is one of the very few independent implementations of BitTorrent that support the more recent extensions to the protocol, and one of the just three independent implementations of BEP-32 (Transmission, Shareaza and Hekate all use code derived from a single source -- so with Vuze and Tixati, that's just three). I believe this alone makes it worthy of a Wikipedia entry, notwithstanding the dearth of third-party references.
I have no POV issues with respect to Tixati -- I have no connections with the company, and everything I know about it comes from the Internet and my own reverse-engineering. There is one bit of original research (marked in the article with a [citation needed] tag) which I've been unable to confirm with third-party sources. Unfortunately, I do not feel I can improve the article any further with my current knowledge, so should my explanations above prove unsatisfactory, we'll need to have this discussion at WP:AFD. Jec (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've never stated anything about a WP:COI, so I don't know why you brought that up, but anyway, Torrentfreak is a web blog, and is thus not a reliable source, even if, as blogs go, they're a more reliable one. Also, it's a bit routine anyway. Whilst technically Tixati may be notable, unfortunately that's not really enough for WP:NSOFTWARE - it's definitely part of the way there, but it kind of needs some coverage in reliable sources about this technical aspect and how that makes it notable, which I'm not seeing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tixati[edit]

A Google search for "best bittorrent client" reveals websites like Gizmos Freeware and Tom's Guide which talk about Tixati, and Lifehacker which mentions Tixati as an alternative to uTorrent, so it looks quite notable. This university website and a few others also mention Tixati as an example of a P2P client, so I think Tixati should be on this wiki. Do you still have the original page? Squc (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. You'll need to ask the gentlemen who removed the page for a copy. Jec (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)