User talk:Dsprc

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

Google Authenticator[edit]

Only the Android app isn't fully open source, the other versions are open source so I think it is misleading to users to say it isn't open open source. In addition the code is fully provided for the PAM module, and iOS code. Johnathan.falk (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Johnathan.falk: It is proprietary as explained by the 3rd-party source provided in citation. Apple TOS for their "app store" explicitly require everything shipped on that platform to also be proprietary. Google themselves have stated all further releases are proprietary as well (the fact that iOS store show updates, but the source tree does not reflect them exemplifies this). The source tree is old and out dated, along with your information. If you object to this rationale, or challenge reliability of source in citation, the proper venue for discussion is article Talk page so other editors can form a consensus. -- dsprc [talk] 01:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I should note this is similar to Chrome and Chromium, where the former is based upon the latter, but none could reasonably argue that Chrome is open source, even if built from Chromium. Unfortunately, Google chose to leave Authenticator with the same nomenclature instead of differentiating them. -- dsprc [talk] 01:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

List of internet forums[edit]

I've worked alongside you on this article for months. I'm not sure it is constructive to revert edits that are policing the list of disqualified sites listed on the talk page. If its already on the disqualified list for months and has been removed by an editor, it would be best to open a topic on the talk page and get consensus. I don't want to see another revert war like we saw last week so I'm writing you here to ask that the you take craigslist and 2channel off the list and lets discuss the matter on the talk page and reach a consensus. I'll open the topics up. on TALK. (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus or discussion for "disqualification", just one editor's unilateral decision based upon opinion which does not mesh with global consensus. This has already been discussed. Global trumps local. Just because they wrote it on Talk doesn't make it so.
2channel, which you continue to remove, is not a hosting service, nor is it an image board. 2channel the forum and text board, is not Futaba Channel the image board. It is a forum, it has an article, it goes in the list. CL is also a forum, it has an article, it goes in the list. -- dsprc [talk] 21:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I should also say that if you're going to police, it is helpful to at least be based upon policy and global consensus. -- dsprc [talk] 21:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Mr. dsprc, I want to again encourage you not to revert decisions that are documented on the TALK PAGE and make sweeping format changes when there is an open discussion on the talk page regarding the format. The TALK PAGE is the place to work this out, not revert warring and nor erasing TALK PAGE discussions. Wikipedia is a collaboration. (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
My contributions are consensus. There is consensus to remove categories, there is consensus to not have post-count-based inclusion criteria, and there is no basis for including the post counts at all. All of this is documented on Talk. No one has reverted a decision, nor removed any Talk content. There is also no edit war. Global guidance for inclusion has already solved those issues, so I just follow them instead of getting bogged down in a local discussion when we've already answers. The only formatting change was to break off the post counts and Cats; after you remove those, the dates follow. What you are left with is the links. If all that is left are links, there is no point in having a table. If no table, alpha is the sensible way to sort entries. Rather than suggest to not make changes, I encourage you to be bold. -- dsprc [talk] 02:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
For the record, you have reverted every edit made by anyone since July 6, in some cases 4 or 5 times - one only needs to look at the history. The article needed to be locked down by he admins last week.
And this is a link to the 1,200 word TALK PAGE erasure that you have now relocated to an archive page. [Removed TALK SECTION] (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your edit (temporarily) to provide an alternative format for consideration. Please do not revert until others have had a chance to comment on the desirability of the this format versus the one you posted or recommend some hybrid. I did not include all you additions from yesterday - time constraint - they certainly can be added. Thanks. (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wanted feedback you could sandbox it, draft it etc. Was never layout which was problematic. Don't lecture me on reverts and then do exactly what you're bitching about. Do whatever ya' want; I'm not wasting anymore time on it. -- dsprc [talk] 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@ - Please do not revert until others have had a chance to comment - that's not how this works. see WP:CONSENSUS. you can link to old versions, explain other possibilities, and even boldly make changes, but you can't tell people not to revert those changes. Dsprc isn't the only one that has expressed concerns. For the record, I also requested a stop to editing, but not to protect any particular version but rather to focus on discussion and stop this disruptive back-and-forth. The current version is the most basic possible and the only one that definitely meets Wikipedia standards. It would be good to have more information, I agree, but what information to add seems to be a point of contention, so let's figure it out (on the article talk page). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: well, I am not editing that page anymore; absolute waste of time over something so trivial. Already removed from Watchlist so, good luck on sorting it all out. FWIW, I don't think the tools which fire WP:Notifications work for IP editors; probably will have to leave {{Tb}} or {{tbt}} on their Talk. -- dsprc [talk] 06:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Internet forums[edit]

I’m contacting active participants on this article to vote “yes” or “no” on this suggested format. [Talk: List of Internet Forums] (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)