Jump to content

User talk:Neustradamus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.187.66.243 (talk) at 20:20, 11 January 2010 (→‎January 2010). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Speedy deletion nomination of AMSN

A tag has been placed on AMSN, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Miami33139 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring deleted articles

When restoring content you must go through WP:DRV. An admin must restore the material for you in order to retain the history. Miami33139 (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were not all of the authors. Because you recreated it, it seems as if you were the only author. Our copyright policy requires that all authors be credited, which doesn't happen if you recreate it yourself. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is ok but why people remove all articles on Wikipedia international ? space problem ? — Neustradamus (✉) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DELETE. There are rules in place as to what's considered appropriate for Wikipedia, most important being verifiability, neutrality and notability. Also, please keep in mind that Google hits are not considered relevant to deletion discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

I have nominated Jabbin for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabbin. Joe Chill (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a policy

Please do not restore unverified information to articles. All information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable to published reliable sources. If information has been removed from an article because it lacks citations, please do not restore it without also adding a citation. Miami33139 (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can put a program without wikipedia article ([[]]). It is verifiable, you can download the program, try or/and see the documentation on the website. An article is not on Wikipedia but we can put informations about this — Neustradamus (✉) 11:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It exists" isn't enough. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. We need independent articles about the subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline does not limit the content of articles (WP:NNC) although Miami33139 has been attempting to make people think that it does. A simple link to the official website and/or documentation for a software program which includes information such as a feature list is sufficient per the WP:SELFPUB section of the verifiability policy for the purposes of discussing or comparing the features and functionality of software in a larger article. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point being that Nuestradamus does not understand notability. He/she is trying to insert information about software that hasn't made any noticable impact, and often isn't relevant to the articles in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coccinella

That topic was deleted (nonnotable). There's no reason to add the corresponding content in other topics. Tedickey (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can inform people. And why there are a lot of red link in Wikipedia ? strange no ? for information Coccinella is not a red link — Neustradamus (✉) 19:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that about a dozen people have pointed out that you're not providing a reliable source for Coccinella; rather you're making what amount to promotional edits. Tedickey (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see before ? I do not know : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaborative_real-time_editor&action=historysubmit&diff=332853691&oldid=332849971 — Neustradamus (✉) 15:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Some friendly advice, there is absolutely no point continuing to fight unwinnable battles over poorly sourced articles. All the web links you have provided to Coccinella at DRV are inadequate. Please read WP:RS and think carefully about the exact meaning of substantial secondary sources. It has to be independent of the subject and to meet RS it needs to be something akin to a published book, broadsheet newspaper or trade publication or the on-line equivalent. Essentially there has to be some form of peer review or fact checking in the medium - otherwise its just babble and personal opinion. Substantial means there has to be detailed coverage - i.e lots of facts, not just a mention here or there. If you want to be taken seriously you need to work with what we are looking for. Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you can look sources of the program : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Coccinella_.28software.29 — Neustradamus (✉) 22:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen. The sites need to be a certain standard to meet RS. Are you deliberately not picking up on this? Spartaz Humbug! 04:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In book: http://books.google.com/books?id=SG3jayrd41cC&pg=PT71&dq=coccinella+xmpp&as_brr=3&cd=1#v=onepage&q=coccinella%20xmpp&f=false not good ? — Neustradamus (✉) 10:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial means there has to be detailed coverage - i.e lots of facts, not just a mention here or there. This book does not provide detailed coverage of Coccinella. Miami33139 (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but it is a good source with informations that you want ! — Neustradamus (✉) 10:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, we want sources that show something is important. Wikipedia is not a general directory. A good source has lots of information. For instance, if this book devoted an entire chapter to Coccinella. We want several sources of significant length. This will help you. Miami33139 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

Your name was brought up by a party to the Arbitration case located here. Any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider can be added to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Workshop.

--Tothwolf (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments, [1] you should create your own section following the formatting already there named Evidence presented by Neustradamus for anything you wish to add. To reply to someone else, add a section inside your own section named Response to [username] for the person you are replying to. You should move your comments to your own section though, otherwise a clerk will move or remove them. I still wish I had noticed the patterns of Miami33139's prod/AfD behaviour and his website sooner. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you can remove if you want but it is only a comment about your message (confirmation of me) ... — Neustradamus (✉) 17:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you merge this page: TOC protocol (already 2 years) — Neustradamus (✉) 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

requests

Re your request here [2] Miami33139 is not an administrator and cannot userfy articles for you. You might try making a request on WP:REFUND. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also your request isn't very clear since you have asked for several pages that have not been deleted. What exactly is it you want? Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it is for restore on my user sub page because articles are removed — Neustradamus (✉) 19:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the ones that have not been deleted? Spartaz Humbug! 19:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are articles which will be removed (in progress) — Neustradamus (✉) 19:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not all of them are nominated for deletion. Undeleting and userfying all those articles would take a considerable time and I cannot see that you have edited any of the sample that I looked at. The links you provided include one page that has never existed and many other pages that have been deleted as advertising by definition they will not be coming back to main-space in that format whatever you do with them. Generally, we userfy articles for editors to work on improving them but there are simply too many here for that to be feasible. Frankly, this looks like an indiscriminate list that has been compiled without even checking if there is an article there. So, before I take on this time consuming and tedious task, may I ask you to explain why you want the articles in your userspace and what you intend to do with them as and when when you get them? Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I updated the list, it is for recover articles — Neustradamus (✉) 21:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • What do you mean for recover articles. You cannot possibly work on so many articles at the same time? Spartaz Humbug! 04:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why it is not possible ?
                • I would like recover articles :
                • It is about XMPP (Ayttm, PSYC, psyced, Peter Millard, Gossip (software), Exodus (instant messaging client), Coccinella (software), iJab)
                • It is protocol (Gale (protocol), Cspace)
                • It is XUL software (Instantbird)
                • It is a P2P software (Retroshare)
                • It is a open source player (Kantaris)
                • BitTorrent client (Aria2, CTorrent, Localhost (software))
                • In priority XMPP, protocol articles and Instantbird, Retroshare — Neustradamus (✉) 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Firstly it will take a considerable amount of time to userfy these articles in your space. They have to be undeleted, then logs, revisions and edit summaries need to be checked for anything that should be left deleted. Then I have to move then to your area and check the pages to ensure that everything is tidy. After this wash rinse and repeat. So, it not a small task you are requesting. Further, our license requires us to move the revisions into your area not just the last version so, if someone else wants to work on them later on, they can't because the stuff will be in your area. Additionally, we do not use user space to indefinitely host material that has been deleted, which means that if, after a few months, it still isn't ready to be restored to main-space it will be nominated for deletion again. We will then have all the drama and arguing about sources that we just had - except for more articles. I want to make sure that it is worth my while to do it and that I'm not going to spends a couple of hours creating more work for everyone else down the line. So, to repeat my question for the second or is it the third time, precisely what do you intend to do with these articles? What do you mean exactly by recover? If its just to host the material then I won't waste my time and I suspect you would struggle to find another admin willing to spend their time doing it either. If your intent is to transwiki the stuff to another location I'm more inclined to help but you need to be very specific about what your intentions are. I'm sorry that we are finding it so difficult to communicate. I hope that by making this effort to be crystal clear on my part it will help you to understand the issues and you can then help me by responding in a more meaningful manner. Spartaz Humbug! 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles

Elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman is an acceptable article title, but Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman is not, for two reasons: The initial c in curve needs to be lower-case, and the dash needs to be an endash rather than a hyphen. Both of these conventions are codified in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free software licence

This article appears to have been written in British English, and per this guideline, you would need a good reason, discussed on the Talk page, to change it. Hope that helps, and I will close your WP:AN report, because this is a content dispute and does not belong there just yet. Rodhullandemu 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, it is strange all license is a license and only one or two articles with a bad name — Neustradamus (✉) 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From your point of view, perhaps, but here there are several varieties of English language, each with their own differences, and you need to establish a case to change from one version to another. Meanwhile, I have received a complaint that you are changing hyphenations contrary to the Manual of Style. This cannot be allowed to continue, because it is disruptive and creates work for other editors. If you have a problem with that, either ask or discuss, but please do not make wholesale changes to suit your own preference. Our standards have evolved over several years and are generally accepted. If you don't stop your disruption, I will enforce a holiday from editing upon you so that you can read those standards. If you would like that in German for the sake of clarity, I can do that too; meanwhile, stop it. Rodhullandemu 23:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
these articles are good : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license for example and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses ... — Neustradamus (✉) 23:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, further to R's comment, please do not edit archived talk pages, as you did here. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok but it is open source in the name page ;)— Neustradamus (✉) 00:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't funny, and you still haven't understood that "open source", the noun, does not need a hyphen, whereas "open-source", the adjectival phrase, does need a hyphen, e.g. "open-source software". This is elementary English. If you do not understand the rules of English, you should probably not be editing English Wikipedia. You are creating a lot of work for other editors to undo your edits. You have already been warned above not to continue, and if you do, you may be blocked from editing. 91.187.66.243 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be trying to establish conformity of terminology across Wikipedia articles, because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; each article, although it may be related to others, has evolved separately, and attempting to do so is a fool's errand. Whereas consistency might be desirable, it is better to improve articles (for which there is much scope) than argue the toss about minor details. The acid test should be whether our readers can adequately understand the articles, despite linguistic differences within, essentially, the same language. Rodhullandemu 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Talk:List of open source video games

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Tuxide (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your message — Neustradamus (✉) 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Continued disruptive editing as already warned; you continued to change spelling to your own preference in the face of multiple opposition and warnings. Adding an alternative "disclaimer" in article headings does not absolve you of the duty to comply with guidelines. Alternatively, if you will not take guidelines on board in the face of advice, you are arguably not competent to edit here, but I have given you a chance to review those guidelines, and adapt to them.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Rodhullandemu 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neustradamus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

because a lot of persons removed a lot of a good modifications, you can see my justifications I did move about easypeasy (you can see the official website) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EasyPeasy&action=historysubmit&diff=336525034&oldid=336428907

I proposed the SLAX -> Slax move because it is Slax (you can see the official website) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASLAX&action=historysubmit&diff=336523520&oldid=336486505

about this article I did modification for be good with the official website : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SLAX&action=historysubmit&diff=336523504&oldid=336492048

I proposed Free software licence -> Free software license because it is license and I added "(or free software licence in commonwealth usage)" like software license page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFree_software_licence&action=historysubmit&diff=336427661&oldid=299687245

about this article, I did a lot of modifications : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_software_licence&action=historysubmit&diff=336520968&oldid=336517171 for be good with license name ...

I proposed Permissive free software licence -> Permissive free software license because it is license and I added "(or free software licence in commonwealth usage)" like software license page. I propose you to see all modifications since several days http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APermissive_free_software_licence&action=historysubmit&diff=336473268&oldid=288734237

A person move open source software to open-source software (not me at the beginning, so it is good for one, it is good for other)

It is same so revert are not justified

For example, I cite you several revert :

  • Comment: I accept the block but not the revert because there are a lot of good modifications, so I request Rollback

Decline reason:

I appreciate that you're trying to help out, and thank you. But the above unblock request doesn't address the reason for the block - you were asked to stop making certain edits, and you continued to make them - Licence/License issues are a most prominent example. The correct course would have been to raise the issue on the article's talk page, making your case for why License is preferred over Licence. In this case, other editors would have cited policy as a reason to keep the British English as it was, and they would have been right - but good faith discussion is never out of order. When you've been asked to stop changing Licence to License, and you continue to do so despite those warnings, that's disruptive, and that resulted in a block. When the block expires, please take care to edit within policy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that licence/license are good but why use not the official name of the licenses in the page ? and I added the reference like software license article it is a good reference "(or software licence in commonwealth usage)". But the problem is that all revert of the persons which are good... You can see here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFree_software_licence&action=historysubmit&diff=336427661&oldid=299687245 — Neustradamus (✉) 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The problem is that although the reference spells something one way, it does not follow that the spelling is correct per the article; for instance, if I were using a British reference for an US work related article the reference may use the term "labour" - but the article would still need to say "labor". The reverse is true. The reason why you got blocked is that you simply prefer to back your own interpretation over consensus - if you are right you should be able to convince others, using your sources. The fact that there are several in disagreement, to your one, and the fact you impose your version results in disruption. I suggest that you discuss before editing, and learn to accept the consensus when it goes against you in future. I will end with a warning not to revert those revisions mentioned above when the block expires, at least not without discussing them, or you will likely be sanctioned for a longer period. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

about Free software licence and Permissive free software licence I will debate but for other revert, I think the rollback will be the good solution because there are a lot of bad revert — Neustradamus (✉) 22:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand - you are blocked because you revert without discussion. You are asking for rollback which is only for reverting vandalism. You must not revert good faith edits without discussion, or you will be blocked again. If you keep doing this when unblocked, then you will be blocked indefinitely. What you think is right is not important, it is what the majority agree is in policy that counts. If you want to continue editing, then you will need to start communicating. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, but about the false prositive ? — Neustradamus (✉) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be false positives, but the onus would be on you to make the case and have others confirm the revert before acting on it. Your own determination on the validity of edits, and your insistence in the face of a consensus against, is the reason why you are presently sanctioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed my reversions and have undone those that appeared to be good edits. When your block expires I strongly advise you to heed LessHeard vanU's advice. Rodhullandemu 18:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all because for example: Slax request move is not here, Slax and easypeasy not rollback (you can see the official websites http://www.slax.org/ and http://www.geteasypeasy.com/, ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extensible_Messaging_and_Presence_Protocol&action=historysubmit&diff=336523622&oldid=336312264 not rollback, ... — Neustradamus (✉) 18:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

You are reverting not only those corrections of mine that were incorrect, but also those which were correct, for example this. I repeat: you do not have consensus for these edits, and I strongly suggest you stop doing this right now, otherwise I will block you again, and permanently, for continued disruption. Rodhullandemu 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not open-source licence but open source license, it is not OpenWatcom it is Open Watcom, it is not Apple Computer it is Apple Inc. for me now it is good, like other page too — Neustradamus (✉) 20:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

In a recent edit to the page History of free and open source software, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Raywil (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it was a redirection before but I am okay with you about license / licence — Neustradamus (✉) 20:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change redirections you don't like. This follows from Wikipedia's guideline WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN, which says 'do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to remove the redirect and point the link directly at the target page.' 91.187.66.243 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neustradamus&oldid=337244873"