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

DNS section.[edit]

There seems to be a mistake in this section. It starts by talking about EveryDNS and then states that people mistakenly took action against EasyDNS. It then states that 'EasyDNS' gave them a service. Now this could be quite correct, but it seems odd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterM88 (talkcontribs) 11:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The cited source says that's what happened. Now copyedited for better clarity. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Please be aware of '' website, Removed the external Link website '' because according to the WikiLeaks website (Supporters page) The "WikiLeaks Forum" is not run or endorsed by WikiLeaks and has no connection to WikiLeaks whatsoever. Also, some concern (although not confirmed) that this forum website exercises spadvertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekemmy (talkcontribs) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. --Lexein (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many section headers? Too long? Nah.[edit]

About this October 7 edit adding two banner templates without discussion here: 1. Section headers are most easily navigated via the TOC, IMHO. 2. Too long? Just use the TOC to navigate. Since the prose size is 55230 B (8460 words), I consider this article in depth and not too long. See WP:Article size for the very approximate size range considerations. I'd like to just remove these two templates. Discuss? User:Czar?--Lexein (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't deny that it's comprehensive, but it can certainly be pared down for verbosity. It's on the long side, especially for being over 50kB. I think the tags were justified and I haven't read a rule about necessarily discussing before adding them. (Also see #Reader feedback: no doubt about info. but jus... above.) We definitely have section overkill: lots of little paragraphs, excessive level-3+ subheaders. It's a surmountable, structural concern. I'd offer to rearrange for flow if I had the time. Per BRD, you're welcome to remove the banners if you feel strongly, but I wonder what other people think. czar  14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no rule about discussing before adding tags, but without discussion, it's just a drive-by tag - that was the point I was going for. I'm certainly ok with gradual section by section trimming for tighter prose, and some removal of redundancy across sections. But sections serve a clarifying purpose, so I'd like to see them stay, until a compelling new structure is offered. It's not an essay, or a wall-of-text Britannica article, so I'm sure there's some middle ground. --Lexein (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I tagged acting on reader feedback, as mentioned. (#Reader feedback: no doubt about info. but jus...) I'll propose a better section structure in the future unless someone beats me to it. czar  23:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

South Park[edit]

Concerning User:AndyTheGrump edit. South Park is the significant image of the popular culture and covers many important topics. As a funny serial is trivial, but talks about important things. I think this section should be restored, maybe in more NPOV shape, if some users consider it trivial. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Find a source that discusses Wikileaks, and suggests that the South Park episode is in any way relevant. If a source can't be found, it is self-evidently of no significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I concur, and encourage finding discussion relating the two in an RS. --Lexein (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Snowden and Wikileaks: FP analsysis of Snowden becoming more well known[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)