User talk:Wrs1864

Please read before commenting here

I will try to post replies on the same talk page that the original post was made.

So if you post here, I will reply here, and if I posted to your talk page, I will monitor it and see any replies you make. I think this makes things less confusing because the conversation doesn't get split across two different pages. If you want me to reply elsewhere, please say so. Thanks Wrs1864 16:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Request for advice

It's my turn to ask for advice. What do you think about Route analytics article? I'd like to tag it somehow to alert for better content creation, because it seems a lot of marketing language or promotion without real information, but I am not sure it should be 'censored' on those grounds alone. Kbrose (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the article, and left a reply on its talk page. I do not know enough about this subject to improve the article, but it could use some work. Wrs1864 (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

CIDR tidbits in IP address

You wrote: "CIDR was introduced in RFC 1338 and RFC 1519 is obsolete" In fact, RFC 1338 only discussed possible future changes and set the stage, but it was NOT the introduction of CIDR, it was an informational RFC. 1519 made it the standard, and despite being superseded now, it is proper to quote it in that context. An article should provide some historical perspective in addition to current state, particularly in this arena, where the technology and terms changed so rapidly at the time. Kbrose (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought about leaving you a note explaining stuff in more detail. You are right, and I knew this stuff, but couldn't fit it into a small edit summary. It is my opinion that adding the RFCs doesn't add much to the IP address article, the details of how CIDR evolved I think are best left to the CIDR article. Again, in my opinion, the IP address article is already kind of long. Right above the stuff I cut out, there is a similar blurb about how the details of classful and supernetworks can be found in their respective articles. I'm not going to push to keep the RFCs out, if you really think they are best there, go ahead and revert again. Wrs1864 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the RFCs are the best references we can provide, before other people introduce a lot of opinionated interpretations, like text books often. Referring to other articles I find ok, but we should remember WP is not a book with a coherent outline or agenda, so duplication between articles should occur to give best perspective in each. Yes, the IP address article is long, and I think we should discuss strategies to shorten it, but I think, not at the expense of sufficient detail in discussion of topics included. Perhaps we should think about delegating the IPv4 and IPv6 stuff entirely to the respective articles and focus in the common aspect better and in more detail. I don't want to just revert you, perhaps we can think about this and see how to provide historical perspective better too, and perhaps revise the entire section, just reverting it won't make it necessarily better either. Kbrose (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, it is a matter of degree, but I find that most articles have way too much redundancy. I go to an article to find out what time it is, and it tells me how to build a watch, the history of timekeeping systems, how the 24 clock is part of evil western imperialism, etc. If I want to learn about related articles, I find it easy to click links (wikipedia isn't a book), but hard to skip past semi-off-topic gunk. I also find that when I fix a mistake in one article, I have to go around to all the other relates articles to fix them too. With respect to the CIDR stuff, I found the sentence to not be entirely accurate, and adding enough text to make it accurate would have, in my opinion, been worse than shortening it up. Again, I'm not stuck on this edit at all, it was just me chasing down obsolete references to RFC 1519. Wrs1864 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Enigform/mod_openpgp

I see you reverted a change I made to Pretty Good Privacy concerning enigform and mod_openpgp. If you think there is a place on the page where these two modules should be mentioned, why not put the information there yourself? I do not see much value in returning misleading information to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskusic (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It was easiest to revert and I'm working on some other stuff right now and didn't want to get too distracted. I felt that slightly misleading information was better than lost information. Wrs1864 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of watch manufacturers

"(there is no real distinction between a "watchmaker" and a "watch brand", at least in practice"

From wiki: "A watchmaker is an artisan who makes and repairs watches." / "A brand is a collection of experiences and associations connected with a service, a person or any other entity." It's a bright line legal distinction. My corrections made the list of watch manufacturers page clearer and more complete. Also there is no reason red links shouldn't be included. Alain Silberstein, Anonimo, Bathys, Eberhardt & Co., Martin Braun, Minerva, RGM, Stowa, don't have wiki pages, but are without question notable watches. This isn't Everything2 where all links must be self-referential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cainxinth (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for taking so long to get back to wikipedia. I'm not sure that this discussion is best on my talk page rather than the article's talk page, but I'll reply here for now. The article is "list of watch manufactures", not "brands" or "watchmakers". I guess I could see new lists created. The history of watches goes back a *LONG* ways. Watchmakers using their name as their "brand" when manufacturing watches was the standard thing to do for a couple hundred years. Most of the articles for the "watchmakers" cover both the person and the business they made. As far as the red links, that was kind of the fall out of the AfD discussion. I could spend 15 minutes and add about 300 names of watch brands as red links, thousands more could be added with some effort. Trying to decide which red links are really notable is hard, it is much easier to see which watch manufactures have articles. Ones with articles are supposed to be notable and show that, if they aren't they get deleted. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ApplianSys

Do you think ApplianSys is notable for WP inclusion? Likewise the corresponding expansion of Comparison of DNS server software? It would appear to me that this is merely a repackaging of another DNS server. Thanks. Kbrose (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Gah, I cringed when I saw that also, but closed my eyes and went on... Um, upon review, I don't think the wikipedia article currently qualifies under WP:CORP as all the references are things like press releases, references to their own website/whitepapers, blog comments, etc. I haven't googled them to see if they would qualify if the article was correctly written. I guess depending on what google shows, I would either tag it with a {{notibility}} or prod it. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added better references to the ApplianSys article including published IDC and Forrester reearch papers. I believe that it does qualify under WP:CORP. I added DNSBOX to the Comparison of DNS server software article as it currently lists Secure64, which is based on NSD (ref) and also only offered commercially as an appliance. DNSBOX uses a modified version of Nixu Namesurfer (DNS server written from scratch), that has been around almost a decade and repackaged into products by Nokia and F5. Bind does run on the same box separately as a security wrapper only. Steventee (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

tnx on dkim

Thanks for the feedback and guidance on the DKIM article modifications. One of the reasons I choose such boring login names is to make sure no one thinks I'm hiding anything... /d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davecrocker (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Modifications to 'email' article

I seem to have gotten into an undo war about the modifications I made to the first paragraph of the article on email. If you are so inclined, it might be worth your taking a look at the mods and my explanation for them, under the discussion tab.

Thanks.

Davecrocker (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)