User talk:131.220.99.58

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

February 2010[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Tennis records relating to aces has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. MaenK.A.Talk 20:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Product notability[edit]

If you want to add a new item to the List of tools for static code analysis you should first make sure it's notable. There is a long-standing consensus on the article to only include notable tools. The consensus is that having a wikipedia article shows the notability. If you want to get Flawfinder on the list, why not try creating an article first? If you don't know how but have some of the info, I'd be happy to assist. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Have you been using a single of the mentioned tools? Half of the tools are a joke and half of the useful tools are missing. Your relevance criteria are bullshit.
So go fix them or go list them at AFD. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look at the AFD thingy even though it probably destroys the last little bit of usefulness (which is different from notability).
  • Uhm. Actually I forgot to thank you for being consequent (honestly). Applying the same rules to Rough_Auditing_Tool_for_Security indeed is an improvement to the situation.
The key that you may be missing is that someone working on the List of tools for static code analysis may not have the time or inclination to go check each individual article. That's the beauty of the consensus, if the article exists use it. If you don't think a particular item should have an article, go AFD it. If you think something should have an article, go create it. It's simple, clean, consistent. If you don't like items on the list, go work on the related article and either improve them or nuke them. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So you are maintaing a list of somethings without actually knowing what those somethings are? May I call this stupid?
Also this simple rule about inclusion/exclusion completely misses reality. Let me write a tool that greps for "if([A-Z]*&&". I give it a name and create an article. Then I can include it in this list which makes absolutely no sense. However having tools like cppcheck or flawfinder that are in use cannot be linked simply because they lack an article. Can you see that reality behaves different that your rules?
And the article will be speedily deleted without question by an admin such as myself. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to create a Cppcheck page, because it already exists^Hed. I updated User:Exuwon/Cppcheck with a few references. What is missing for it to be included? Please decide to either include cppcheck or remove Yasca. Anything else heavily violates consistency.
Feel free to work on the articles in question. You can create new articles as needed per wiki guidelines, or improve existing articles, or mark articles for deletion for the ones you think deserve it. Welcome to wikipedia. Re "anything else" you really should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because that reasoning doesn't hold any weight at wikipedia. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

131.220.99.58 (talk) 02:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please continue Cppcheck discussion on Talk:Cppcheck. 131.220.99.58 (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure which areas you're reading, so just a note, I think that Cppcheck page is ready to go live with IMO. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Rough_Auditing_Tool_for_Security is not the same rules. That one got deleted because "see-also" items cannot be red-linked, period. No discussion. You can red-link inline in an article, but never in a see-also. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what makes the difference here. "List items cannot be red-linked." and "See-also cannot be red-linked." basically look like the same things to me.
In general there are lists that are merely part of a page where red-links are just fine. But in "list" articles where it's only a list, there are stricter requirements to keep them from getting out of control. Links inside an article can be red-links if they are topics that are likely to pass notability and have their own article some day. If they are not likely, then they should not be red-linked. See-also is for navigation and must never be red-linked, since it defeats the purpose. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of tools for static code analysis, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you selected the wrong user? The one removing content without reason was User:Tjarrett. In my only removal I gave a very good reason. Fortunately User:HelloAnnyong has resolved this issue now. 131.220.99.58 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Cppcheck[edit]

FYI - I went ahead and made the Cppcheck page live and removed the temp version in the userspace. Hope you don't mind. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Great to hear this. 131.220.99.58 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. If you have other new articles you want to collaborate on, let me know. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

List of tools for static code analysis[edit]

I don't want to get into an edit war with you. Let's keep it constructive. I didn't think your citation needed template was serious--I took it as the discussion on the talk page spilling over into the article, and my edit summary reflected that. -Tjarrett (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 22:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)