|WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing||(Rated Stub-class)|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on ASCEND. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014235434/http://ascendwiki.cheme.cmu.edu:80/Publications to http://ascendwiki.cheme.cmu.edu/Publications
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Opening sentence unclear
The opening sentence states ASCEND is the GC on November 3, 2016, open source, mathematical modelling system developed at Carnegie Mellon University since late 1978. What on earth is GC? Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- @RobbieIanMorrison: This apparently meaningless text was added to this article in November 2016. Should we peer review this article to prevent future incidents of vandalism like this one? Jarble (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Jarble (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Jarble. Thanks for your response. It seems that this kind of vandalism has occurred only once on this article and my instinct is that the threshold for placing it under peer review has not been met. Furthermore, the vandalism was detected through normal processes and quite quickly too. I am not skilled in dealing with abuse on Wikipedia though, so if you want to request the page be placed under peer review, then please go ahead. By the way, the page still needs fixing. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)