User talk:Dodi 8238
- 1 About your, mine [and others] reverts
- 2 Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance
- 3 List of universities in Denmark
- 4 'conflict of interest'
- 5 I'm OK with that speedy deletion. People should read approved materials only.
- 6 A barnstar for you!
- 7 Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science
- 8 Thanks for the welcome! Quick question for you.
- 9 Internet censorship
- 10 TAILS page edit adding ver 2.5
About your, mine [and others] reverts
Hi, as you are new to me, reverted me (ok), and I you again (with long text A.-E. ..) at constructor theory talk page. I would like to know if I should trim/delete my text, at the talk page. You might agree now, and the article might, on it's own, indicate peer-review status. Then, no need for others to read my long text then..(?) I see another one has commented. Feel free to there (or here, and maybe tell me about yourself) comment and/or trim. I'm just trying to do the right thing, should read more of what you point to.. I'm just a physics amateur.. mostly edit computer related articles, where I feel most qualified, and then some others, e.g. medical, where I try to be extra careful.. I'm next going to discuss/revert a different thing, if you like to comment.. comp.arch (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Mass surveillance
List of universities in Denmark
First of all thank you for all your contributions to articles about educational institutions in Denmark! As for the list of universities in Denmark, I am wondering if Copenhagen Business Academy shouldn't take Niels Brock's place? More generally, I am wondering if it wouldn't give a better overview if all the fefunct (pre-merger) institutions were moved to a separate list (on the same page)? Well I'm sure you have already considered that option but I just think that the vast majority of readers will only be interested in active schools. Should KEA – Copenhagen School of Design and Technology be added to the list?Ramblersen (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing those up. I've now started separate sections for vocational universities (erhvervsakademi) and former universities and colleges in Denmark. The interesting thing about Copenhagen Business Academy is that it's a merger of programmes from four different institutions. Based on their own websites, it appears like at least Niels Brock and the Copenhagen Hospitality College continue to be independent institutions. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I removed Niels Brock from the list because it's a school of secondary education and it appears like the tertiary education programmes were merged into Copenhagen Business Academy. KEA is now in the vocational universities section. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it is very confusing with all those mergers and it is very difficult to find spurces that meet wikiepdia's standards. Witin the area of secondary education, Copenhagen Technical College and Cph West just merged into some gigantic monstrum called NEXT or NEXT EDU or something like that (I really don't hope they paid someone to come up with that name!). I think it would be useful with one or two "Education in Copenhagen" nav bars. I tend to think that the best solution is a "Higher education in Copenahgen" nav bar and a separate "Sedondary education in Copenhagen" nav bar rather than fitting everything into one. What do you think and would you have an opinion about how they are (or it is) best structured.Ramblersen (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
'conflict of interest'
my edits are accurate and supported by citations. The information corrected is not supported and is innacurate, simply of low quality. Furthermore, I don't know who is interested in posting low-quality edits to Sci-Hub page? Mindwrapper (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was not the user who reverted your edits in the Sci-Hub article. I just wanted to let you know about our conflict of interest guideline because, in , you wrote that you are a Sci-Hub developer. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for information. I'm new to Wikipedia, but the reason I am not contributing to it, is simple: all your edits will simply be undone, even if they are true and are supported by evidence. The Sci-Hub page is only the most obvious example of this. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwrapper (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 March 2016
I'm OK with that speedy deletion. People should read approved materials only.
- Wikipedia is not censored, if that's what you mean by "people should read approved materials only". That does not, however, mean that user pages can be used as repositories (= storage locations) for original research. According to WP:UPNOT, user pages may not contain substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia. This includes:
- Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)
- I nominated your user page for speedy deletion under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because you were clearly using it as a repository for original research, despite having been notified about our policies by another editor already in February 2012. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The No Spam Barnstar|
|Thank you for your continued work, particularly in fighting spam, promotion and bad sourcing in Wikipedia. I also appreciate the effort you put into writing your edit summaries. -- intgr [talk] 13:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)|
- Thanks! I try to make it a point to always write something in my edit summaries (per WP:FIES). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science
Thanks for your time and edits on Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science! Very much appreciated! Sorry about the mostly Dutch sources. There will be move English source of the next week or so. Personally, I attended the meeting in Amsterdam and have given feedback on the living document and not formally involved in the drafting otherwise. I'm an Open Science addict and predict this document will have a major impact. Of course, after May 27 we'll hear more about it too, I guess. For now, I added a news item in from a Dutch newspaper, but already asked around for coverage in newspapers in other countries. Also, I'm trying to keep track of coverage on Lanyrd, see http://lanyrd.com/2016/eu2016nl/coverage/ Egonw (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Added an article from Science about the meeting and the Call for Action. Egonw (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! Quick question for you.
Hi Dodi 8238,
Thanks for the welcome! I hope to contribute much here. :) I tried to read docs as much as I could before doing any editing. Hoping I didn't mess it up too bad. :) I'm not real familiar with this whole Talk page thing though. Thanks for the guidance on my edit. I see what you did converting them to References...that does make more sense. I had a quick question about the third party reference you were requesting. It's one of those things that people involved with WordPress are familiar with, but I see why it would be better for third party reference as well. There are a ton of potential resources to use. I think this is the most impartial one (and I hope it's ok to post it here..if not let me know and I'll delete): ManageWP.org: Most Downloaded Plugins in "Antispam" category ...is that more what you're going for? It would work for all three. If not, please let me know. Hope this isn't too trivial. I really appreciate your help. :)
Also, regarding the undoing of my edit to the Security through Obscurity article, I was actually correct about it being the sole method. That was what needed clarification. There is a commonly spread incorrect understanding of this, that it is any use of obscurity, but the phrase actually is only referring to implementations where the entire security is dependent on obscurity. That clarification was specifically needed. There is much bad info floating around on that topic. It is important for people to understand this, which is why I made the edit. Please see the OWASP references. OWASP is an authority, not open wiki. That was a legitimate and correct edit that I contributed. That was a bit discouraging to see it rolled back. Another source that helps clarify this definition as well: Obscurity is a Valid Security Layer From that article:
Obscurity as a Layer: Obscurity as a layer makes a system with already good defenses more difficult to target, which improves its overall security posture.
Security Through Obscurity: Security through Obscurity means that, once targeted, the system will be defenseless, i.e. all its security comes from secrecy.
Please reconsider. :) Maybe I should add that quote?
- Regarding Akismet#Competitors: Sections like this are WP:SPAMBAIT and should always be sourced with independent, reliable sources. The managewp.org page you found is just raw data, and is not enough to satisfy the third-party sources requirement. Try to find e.g. articles in mainstream newspapers that have written about the projects in question.
- Regarding the lead section of the Security through obscurity article: Claiming that I undid your edits is false. are your edits and is my edit directly after yours. I did three things:
- I removed the undue emphasis that you added with formatting. This is something we don't do here on Wikipedia. You can read more about this in our manual of style.
- Saying that "security through obscurity is the reliance of secrecy of the design or implementation as the sole method of providing security" implies that such systems never use any other methods to provide security for the system. Security through obscurity is not always the only method that is used to provide security for a system. Therefore, I think it is better to say "security through obscurity is the reliance of secrecy of the design or implementation as a method of providing security".
- I removed the quote that you copied from OWASP's wiki per WP:UGC. Claiming that this isn't an open Wiki that anyone can modify is false. Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Wikis and personal websites (like danielmiessler.com) are not considered to be reliable sources. Your edits will not stick if you use questionable or self-published sources.
- If I had undone your edits, the article would look like Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC) [edited 13:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)] , but now it looks like . --
- Thanks for clarification on the WP:SPAMBAIT. I see your point. I guess you could say the entire article really is spambait. I understand about getting mainstream articles, and that was my initial goal, but that's unfortunately not always possible with WordPress. Some of the best resources are more niche. The other thing to keep in mind is that mainstream articles are not always accurate, as they tend to be several layers away from those actually involved in these areas. In research, smaller, localized, primary and secondary sources have more value that mainstream resources, so I'm not exactly sure why that would be different here. The closer you can get to those with expertise, the better. Otherwise, people might as well just use Google or their local magazine rack.
- I'll forego any more edits on that page and leave that to someone else. Perhaps someone else knows of better resources. I wasn't making saying anything negative about you with the changes. I apologize if I misspoke. I appreciate teaching me about formatting rules. I understand now what you meant about that, and that's great.
- Regarding your point that my edit "implies that such systems never use any other methods to provide security for the system", that's exactly what I'm saying, and the exact correction that needed to be made.
- When you say:
- Therefore, I think it is better to say "security through obscurity is the reliance of secrecy of the design or implementation as a method of providing security".
- That is your opinion, but I'm sorry, you are incorrect here, and that is the exact issue I'm trying to fix with the page.
- If a system uses other methods than obscurity, (implying stronger methods), then it is by definition not "security through obscurity" (or "security by obscurity"), it would be "obscurity as a layer of Defense in Depth". The nuances of the language in the phrase are quite important and people overlook this. Those prepositions "through" and "by" have a specific meaning. "Security through obscurity" is not referring to merely "any use of obscurity within a security mechanism", yet many spread that false definition of it, and it ends up misleading a lot of people in the security field. Because of this, many look upon those with disdain who use or even mention "obscurity" in any security related matter. Yet they are factually and statistically incorrect.
- Obscurity is a valid layer that can enhance or strengthen other layers of security. Systems that integrate obscurity as a layer in a Defense in Depth system with other strong measures are proven to be more robust and difficult to break than those that do not. They also increase the time, resources and skill level to implement a successful attack.
- OWASP may technically be a Wiki but it has a high editorial standard, and is highly regarded resource in security. Not quite understanding that standard since Wikipedia is a Wiki, and it is quoted all the time by other reputable sites.
- Just to give some personal feedback: I don't know if this is possible with Wikipedia, but when editing another's edit, would it not be possible and possibly more constructive to contact them first, and have conversations like this before going back and forth on the edits? I realize I have a lot to learn about the community, and I'm willing to humbly do so, and accept your guidance. However, I am a subject matter expert in this area, with decades of experiences, and I'm trying to contribute to some positive change in this area.
- I have to say, that it is quite discouraging to come here and try to contribute. Honestly, it doesn't seem like you all are that willing to hear other's contributions. I think that most people don't want to get involved with Wikipedia because of these type of atmosphere.
- Perhaps I should gracefully withdraw from Wikipedia...starting to feel like I may not be as welcome as I initially thought, and may not be able to contribute here after all.
- Primary sources are indeed important when doing research, but we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Wikipedia is intended to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from reliable secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied on exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research.
- Based on this discussion, I have now restored the "security through obscurity is the reliance on the secrecy of the design or implementation as the sole method of providing security" sentence, but I would still like to see a better source than OWASP or danielmiessler.com, just because of Wikipedia's policies regarding user-generated content and self-published sources. As a subject matter expert in the area, you probably have good insights for locating reliable sources.
- WP:BRD is one method of reaching consensus. Please don't take it personally if others modify what you've written. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thinking for a while seriously; the actual internet censorship cannot be controlled or suppressed directly just like an 'Ad hoc' is used for applying extra purposes about what the article means itself. So the first line becomes too fallacy. That's the point for changing the text that should be read like "is the inquiry of interventional control or suppression".
- Well, i have seen how you won't answer my section, but i must add this point: what can't you ensure about Internet censorship will: could be called as well under control and suppression from order people? isn't right? or from offenders?. It is fallacy. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's policies on original research dictate that you can't just change the definition of a term only because you think that there is something wrong with it. You must provide a reliable source that directly supports the claim that "Internet censorship is the inquiry of interventional control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet". Your IP address is from Spain, so I'm guessing that you're not a native English speaker. Perhaps what you mean to say is that the goal or purpose of Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet? "Inquiry" is far from the correct word to use in this case, because it is synonymous with "investigation". Either way, your edit is archived in the page history for now, and you are free to re-add it if you are able to include a citation. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
TAILS page edit adding ver 2.5
I added it because it lets people know what bugs are currently being worked on and when they can expect the fixes to be released.
Thank you for reverting my mistake. I was trying to use the new 'visual editing' feature. Then went back to code editing. I caught my problem, but you caught it 1st. :)
- Wikipedia's WP:BALL policy states that individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable, and that dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. #4 of WP:IINFO states that Wikipedia articles should not list software versions that haven't been the subject of independent, third-party coverage. Version 2.5 is an upcoming minor release that hasn't been the subject of third-party coverage. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that it should not be listed until it is actually released, and that once it is replaced by version 2.6, it should be removed from the table if it hasn't been the subject of third-party coverage. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)