User talk:intgr

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

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here rather than on your talk page, unless you indicate otherwise. Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.

Undeniable signature[edit]

I have reverted your revert; please see the history for details. (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry that I reverted without a good understanding of the subject. (For the record, here's the revert) -- intgr [talk] 14:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hard disk drive failure link removals[edit]

I see no difference between a relevant resource from Secure Data Recovery versus one from Data Cent Professional Data Recovery, which by the definition of the rules is a site meant to "attract visitors to a website or promote a product".

If other service sites can add their resources in a reasonable way, I should be able to add mine in a way that makes sense for the page as I did when I originally replaced an outdated reference on a subject matter the page I suggested was immediately relevant to.

If resources from websites offering a product are truly prohibited, then the Data Cent Professional Data Recovery link along with the Graff Data Recovery link in the External Resources section should be removed as well. Should these links be allowed to remain, perhaps I can provide a more information rich piece of content to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlockofSmeagols (talkcontribs) 18:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@FlockofSmeagols: Your comment suggests that you have a conflict of interest and it's clear to me from your behavior that you're not here to improve Wikipedia, but trying every approach possible to add links to; that's sufficient reason to keep reverting your attempts to insert this link. Also, the website is by far less spammy than the link that you're trying to insert.
For what it's worth, I tried also removing the other links, but it was re-added by another experienced editor and it didn't bother me enough to open a discussion. -- intgr [talk] 08:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that is the thing, I was trying to improve this Wiki page. Initially, I replaced a BROKEN reference link with a relatively similar resource that I found that I thought would be helpful to the page. When that reference was reverted to an archived version of the old page I replaced, I thought that was understandable so I sought out other ways that would be more acceptable to include a resource I genuinely thought could make the page better.

What came off as aggressive editing on my part was merely me trying to figure out a way to add something I thought was useful to the page in a way that was acceptable to the moderators. You can see why when I see other informational pages from data service companies included in the external resources section, that I would think that that would be the appropriate place to put add the disputed resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlockofSmeagols (talkcontribs) 15:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Cer, Macedonia[edit]

Hallo, I spotted your pagemove (I'd put the article on my watchlist to see what happened next, after doing a major cleanup while stub-sorting it). I'm sure you're right, but I've raised the point at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Macedonia)#Disambiguating placename article titles that it would be helpful if there was some note there about how to disambiguate article titles, especially as there's a link to that page from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Macedonia. PamD 11:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. -- intgr [talk] 11:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

i'm dsambiguating, fyi ;-)[edit]

i was Special:Contributions/ i linked IMD and IMDS to each other because, at the time, imd asked "Did you mean: Imds?" with no mention of IMD. i somewhat feel that IMD and IMDS should still link to each other because, even though it's true that there are lots of disambig pages only one letter different, in this case the single differentiating letter is the S-at-the-end so often used in pluralization (like alien and aliens). i understand why you got rid of the hatnote, though. Just thought i'd mention why i put it there in the first place. (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of info under "misc" of the disamb. page[edit]

Hey Intgr,

Can you tell me why you removed my info from this page...   ...The info is correct, there just ins't a page on it, yet.

Derpagon (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Derpagon: The main purpose of disambiguation pages is to link to existing Wikipedia articles that have similar names (see MOS:DAB), but your entry did not introduce a link to a WP article. Further, only common acronyms should be added to disambig pages, see WP:DABABBREV and MOS:DABINITIALS. -- intgr [talk] 13:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit war on mpv page[edit]

Hi, just letting you know that 2601:18b:8001:5419:f8fd:e01a:41a8:c3ea is kuchikirukia (so he is citing himself). He has been harassing the mpv issue tracker since yesterday and has repeatedly created new accounts to circumvent bans. He's now taking it to Wikipedia[1], obviously to push his personal agenda, since the issue in question actually affects at best 0.01% of all mkv files in circulation. He is one of the few people producing files that are affected by the issue. (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear to most Wikipedia editors that such content does not belong on WP. Anyway, the edit warring seems to have died down. -- intgr [talk] 23:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^  Missing or empty |title= (help)

Re: Restored citation at Direct memory access[edit]

Thanks, the reworded sentences look good to me. The clause I objected to was (emphasized):

Newer Intel Xeon chipsets include a DMA engine technology called I/O Acceleration Technology (I/OAT), meant to improve network performance on high-throughput network interfaces, in particular gigabit Ethernet and faster.

It sounds like we're on the same page:

The claim in Wikipedia wasn't supported by the citation and I changed the text in Wikipedia

I still find the graf about Grover's findings from 2006 a little misleading—it has a place in a longer segment, but maybe not 50% of a short blurb about the technology. For example, it isn't the very second thing I'd choose to tell someone about IOAT who has never heard of it before.

KMeyer (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

MIXMAX statistical tests[edit]

@Intgr: @Intgr: As I understand you would like to know if MIXMAX has passed statistical tests. The U01 test was performed for the MIXMAX generator. The results of these tests are published in the article already refereed, K. Savvidy (2015) "The MIXMAX Random Number Generator". Comp.Phys.Communic. 196: 161–165. The article is also available in an open-access site: The Table 1 of the article represents the necessary data. In the last column of the Table 1 one can see that the MIXMAX generators of the dimension N bigger than N=88 are passing the BigCrash suite of tests (the U01 test). The default dimension recommended to the users is N=256. Sincerely George Savvidy (George Savvidy 19:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi, I have replied at Talk:MIXMAX generator. I prefer to keep article-related discussion on the article's talk page, so other interested editors have a better chance of joining in. -- intgr [talk] 08:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Decentralized autonomous organization[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Decentralized autonomous organization—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Tšernobyl listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tšernobyl. Since you had some involvement with the Tšernobyl redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Ignoring discussion & cut-and-paste page moves‬[edit]

You're absolutely right. I am sorry for my mistake. Unfortunately I am not an expert in wikipedia so i need help: In "Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cache memory" it was decided that you could move the article from the draft to main space. My mistake was to use "cut-and-paste" instead of "More-Move" tab so to preserve the history. It is correct ?.

Now, what is the best way to correct this error ? - Can you help me ?. Thank you - Ferry24.Milan (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ferry24.Milan: Oh, I was not aware of that deletion discussion, sorry. I still don't think the article belongs in main space. Wikipedia (at least the English version) has a quite clear vision about what sort of content we want and how it should be structured. Much of it reads more like lecture notes than an encyclopedia entry. The article as it is now would be a better fit for Wikibooks.
Normally the solution to cut-and-paste moves is Wikipedia:History merge, but my request for that was rejected because the merge would be too complicated. So just leave it. -- intgr [talk] 10:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


Hello, last week you noticed that I was trying to clean up the article Kinetica (software). It looks like a single-purpose account has reverted several of those changes, including removing some promotional external links and adding some independent sources mentioning a major competitor. If you have a spare minute, an opinion would be appreciated. Thanks! W Nowicki (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Intgr: Why are you deleting the capabilities of the technology along with the awards and apis sections ? Seems like the edits Nowicki did are malicious from a competitor, MapD, and trying to harm the page of Kinetica while promoting MapD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterav (talkcontribs)
@Mysterav: For the record, my only connection with MapD was that I had heard of them once before, and ran across their name again when trying to find independent sources for this article. As far as I know, they are the only other article we have on Wikipedia about this kind of technology, which is why I thought a simple neutral mention with two independent sources was reasonable. A category with only two articles seems overkill to me, but certainly I am willing to go with consensus. Look at the history for the MapD Technologies article and see I started applying the policies to it (still needs work too!). The reason we delete these tiny sections is because it is the style of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a product guide, so this is not a place for promoting your product. As suggested, reading some style guides and policies before reverting might save some pain all around. Also for full disclosure, in real life I was contacted by a third-party recruiter for this company which is what prompted me to take a look at the article. I replied to the recruiter and told them about the article, but have not heard back. Thanks for cooperation. W Nowicki (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mysterav: I helped and agree with Intgr and W Nowicki. The article was too promotional. I removed the MapD name because the categories are a better way to do this. I also added the logo. Timtempleton (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is a need to continue this discussion, please do so at Talk:Kinetica (software). -- intgr [talk] 08:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Canonical link element disscusstion[edit]

Hi Intgr, About the page of, I don't know why this is not suited for the topic of Canonical_link_element page. I think the canonical need more information or explain. For example, the Canonical Issue is a real problem and it does not exist on the Canonical_link_element page. I think my modify can helping people knows what it is. You can reference this site:, in this case, we can know there are a lot of people don't know what the canonical issue mean, and if we can note it in the wiki, it should help more people to understand. Hope we can reach a consensus on this thing. If you have any thought, please send me a message. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciouslyon0101 (talkcontribs) 10:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ping|Luciouslyon0101}}:{{ I already gave some clues in the edit comment and your talk page. The content you added was already explained elsewhere in the article, thus redundant, besides being poorly written. And the reference you added looks like spam, certainly not a reliable source. Since you're adding the same website to multiple articles, it's a reasonable conclusion that you're here to promote that website, not to produce quality content for Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 11:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ping|intgr}}:{{ Oh, right. I'm sorry for that. You are the best for the writing, I forgot it.Luciouslyon0101

Django Framework[edit]

Hi intgr

Will you please tell me what's wrong with the website I submitted. The tutorial was quite good so I though I should share. It is not "a bad copy of Django's official docs". What makes you you think it is ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamPro (talkcontribs)

@AdamPro: I am truly sorry for that remark, my edit comment was entirely incorrect. At first the website looked like just a copy-paste of Django's tutorial -- like so many websites do for search engine manipulation. It doesn't help that the "About" page is filled with Lorem ipsum. But I realize now that the tutorial is actually original content and it looks like a decent effort went into it.
However, regardless, Wikipedia is mostly about content, not a link farm. We don't want to link to every related tutorial under the Sun. And we don't hold long arguments whether a link should be kept or not -- when in doubt, editors prefer to simply remove external links. All the edits you have made to Wikipedia until now (Special:Contributions/AdamPro) have been adding external links; some with no concern for breaking page layout. This doesn't paint a picture of someone who cares about Wikipedia's content, but someone just using Wikipedia to advertise their own website, which is forbidden under the conflict of interest guideline. -- intgr [talk] 07:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Block & ZFS[edit]

Hi there! Please check my recent Block & ZFS edits. I've removed questionable statements (will bring them back with more quotes) and added new references. Also please make sure you realize a) Joyent isn't a "blog" and b) actual blog on Oracle (guys who own ZFS) is a reliable source. Thanks! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

An AfD entry in need of attention[edit]


There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:


Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I respect and value WP:EL, but nowhere in the policy does it say "do not add links" to articles. The hidden note said "if you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, but put it on this article's discussion page first..." There is no requirement to submit edits to regular articles to the talk page for discussion and/or approval. WP:EL only says you can't do EL's to "material that violates the copyrights of others" or websites on the "Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist", and there is a list of ELs to avoid. But I don't see "submit edits to talk page" in there. If there is a section in WP:EL that says that editors need to post proposed changes to talk, please point it out to me. ThanksOnBeyondZebraxTALK 16:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@OnBeyondZebrax: Like I said in the edit summary, if you disagree with the message of the template, discuss it at Template talk:NoMoreLinks. That's the template where the message comes from. Editing the template's message on one article to make it contradict itself is just confusing and isn't going to help anyone. -- intgr [talk] 21:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Morgan House, Kalimpong[edit]

I have made changes in the page gallery in line with your suggestion. Request you to re-look at the page and suggest if any further improvement can be done. ````

DST Group[edit]

I have no interest in starting WW III (fortunately, I have better things to do), but I feel that this edit firstly adds no value, and secondly is highly insulting to the people who (unlike you) are actually trying to improve the article. How about thinking before adding random tags to articles about which you have (quite clearly) no intention to make any improvement yourself? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: Hi! Nor do I have any intention to get bogged down in an argument about this. I respect your removal and I concede that people have opinions different than mine, but I think you're overreacting to this. I think placing maintenance templates does provide value: they raise awareness of Wikipedia's style guides; they can motivate other random (possibly new) editors to jump in to help; and I think it's actually fairly constructive criticism, the style guide pages are quite well written with plenty of examples. I don't think any of these are invalidated by the fact that I didn't work on the article myself. -- intgr [talk] 12:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. What can I say other than my opinion is different from yours, particularly given that I am one of the editors actively trying to improve the page, and very clearly, you have contributed nothing? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Google is more reliable than the vendor???[edit]

Are you serious when you write that the vendor does not know how their device have been named? Do you understand the difference between apperture and, say an apple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A00:2580:A11:96FF:FE16:8580 (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The WP:Google test is reasonable for establishing a rough estimation for the prevalence of different name forms. I agree it's not sufficient to declare this case closed, but I believe it's enough to revert your edits. It will take some time to go through the reliable sources and draw the a more thorough conclusion. Rest assured I will approach it with an open mind; I have no issue with moving the page if that is indeed more prevalent in reliable sources. I just think your edits have been too hasty and not sufficiently justified.
Take a deep breath and when you're ready to have a constructive discussion, please join in at Talk:Graphics address remapping table#Page title. -- intgr [talk] 14:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)