Talk:Hurricane Electric

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Electric article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

There are some grammatical and stylistic issues that need to be identified and addressed. This message is primarily a reminder to myself (so that I can flag this properly later)

—KJ4IPS (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute - IPv6 Tier

There is not clear agreement among network operators as to the relative "tiers" of Cogent vs HE in the IPv6 DFZ. I do not think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to take such a strong position in the article text. I've proposed several changes to the peering dispute section to describe that dispute without violating WP:NPOV by taking a position on a disputed issue. But every time I do so, my edits are reverted by User:Volkirik. Take a look at the Hurricane Electric article history, and each of our recent contribs, for context. This is coming close to violating the spirit of the WP:3RR, so rather than continue the edits, I'm bringing it to the talk page. How do people feel about this? DefaultFree (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IT is actually clear. Cogent has peering agreement with each and every other tier-1 network while HE does not. For example; IF google decides to not announce their prefixes to Level3 are we going to consider level3 tier2? Please be more reasonable. --Volkirik (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to make sure peering wars between internet/network operators do not create revert wars here. Tier-1s are always tier-1 until they depeer with a tier1. Wikipedia is independent. Not peering with HE.net means no tier1 league for them. So if you are going to remove my words which were accepted for a long time, then please indicate sensible reason. We are not defending Cogent or HE.net here. You can get more information from operators, but to make it clear, HE.net is not and never has been a Tier-1. They lack peering to four operators in IPv4 internet and to one operator (Cogent) in IPv6. It is their responsibility to complete their peering to become tier-1. Caida AS-rank and many other independent source ranks Cogent higher than He and they dont have any upstream. I am not customer/staff of Cogent or HE.net.. Please be more reasonable. --Volkirik (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not allow peering wars to lead to edit wars (hence, this discussion rather than continued edits). But we also shouldn't take sides, i.e. declare Cogent's position correct, or HE's position correct. Like you say, Wikipedia is independent. One could argue, by the same logic you used, that Cogent is not Tier-1 because they have no IPv6 routes to Google or to HE, who can both credibly be said to be part of the DFZ. Instead of taking a position in the dispute, we should be trying to describe the dispute in neutral terms. DefaultFree (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! I will not persist. --Volkirik (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit 13 August 2023

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.

Please replace under Incognet dispute "discussion forum" with "discussion and harassment forum" as per lede of Kiwi Farms. "discussion forum" is probably not NPOV, and as the IP revert pointed out, "criminal" is not in the lede of the article of the banned customer, so it would be not WP:DUE here. lizthegrey (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 13-AUG-2023

Discussion required

Controversial issues ought not to be resolved through the COI edit request feature, a feature which is primarily meant for COI editors to propose nominally controversial edits to be reviewed by a neutral third party editor. Edit requests involving overtly controversial proposals such as the ones proposed here are not recommended for use with the {{Edit COI}} template.^[1]^[a]
The process of content dispute resolution needed here should begin with a discussion of the issues with local editors here on this talk page. To that end, the COI editor is invited to continue the discussion below.
If consensus is achieved, and that consensus is that the information ought to be removed and/or clarified in the article, the COI editor may then invoke the {{Edit COI}} template to have a neutral editor make those changes. If no consensus is found here on the talk page alone, the COI editor may then follow up by using any of the subsequent dispute resolution strategies listed under WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.

Regards, Spintendo 20:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ The issue is not merely a question of reverting changes that may or may not violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies. The very fact that a dispute exists in the interpretation of those policies and guidelines is the main reason for avoiding use of the {{Edit COI}} template.

References

^ "Template:Edit COI/Instructions". Wikipedia. 28 July 2023. Instructions for Reviewers: Do not insert major re-writes or controversial requests without clear consensus. When these are requested, ask the submitter to discuss the edits instead with regular contributors on the article's talk page. You can use {{edit COI|D|D}}.

[2] The issue is not merely a question of reverting changes that may or may not violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies. The very fact that a dispute exists in the interpretation of those policies and guidelines is the main reason for avoiding use of the {{Edit COI}} template.

[1] "Template:Edit COI/Instructions". Wikipedia. 28 July 2023. Instructions for Reviewers: Do not insert major re-writes or controversial requests without clear consensus. When these are requested, ask the submitter to discuss the edits instead with regular contributors on the article's talk page. You can use {{edit COI|D|D}}.

[1]

[a]