User talk:Palosirkka

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

Edit warring in Warzone 2100[edit]

Hello, Palosirka.

Apparently you and I are having a dispute about a change in Warzone 2100. In Wikipedia we resolve our disputes through BRD process. You made a change (B). I reverted that change (R). We have B and R. But now, instead of beginning a discussion, (carrying out D,) you are engaged in the act edit warring.

Cease edit warring immediately and proceed per BRD. This is your first and last warning. Should you fail to comply, I will report you to noticeboard. Fleet Command (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


Olá Palosirkka. I am confused about your post on my talk page. What exactly does "You're leaking MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 spam" actually mean? I followed your link to the compare page, and did not see anything unusual nor did looking at the article-space explain anything. Can you explain? Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you not see your edit containing a long string of spam containing "MicrosoftInternetExplorer4"? Palosirkka (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay...I caught the script. Sorry about that: didn't notice until I checked the diff for the page, that you corrected. Thanks for that.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Do you know what caused that output? Seems there are quite a few other occurrences as well. Palosirkka (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
From my experience, those characters occurred in the past when I copied between Internet Explorer and Word or directly from Internet Explorer into the edit window, when I copied material over for translation (Portuguese to English). Regardless, I tried to duplicate it just before writing this, and could not succeed. Its all a matter of technique, I guess. These type of errors occurred in the past, but I usually caught them. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I brought this up at the Village Pump for what it's worth as well. Palosirkka (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hercules is not "free software"[edit]

Your edit on Hercules had the comment "cat per discussion". If you'd read the discussionon the talk page, the category does not apply, since the developers object strenuously to that name. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I read the discussion... It is completely irrelevant what the developers call it. Wikipedia is not written from the point of view of its subjects. Palosirkka (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is *also* written with a NPOV. Calling it "free software" is not neutral; it supports the Stallmanite point of view. In any event, it would have been appropriate to discuss on the talk page and get consensus before resuming the controversial edits. YOu seem to have a history of not doing this. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Calling it "open source" is an OSIte POV and your POV, not neutral. Please don't resort to ad hominems. Palosirkka (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That's why it's not called either open source or free software. That was the consensus reached through discussion, and you're going against that consensus. As for a history of warring instead of discussing, I point to the first section of this page. Please follow the accepted process and not make a change that has caused controversy in the article without first reaching consensus on the talk page. I've avoided reverting your change again, but others probably will not. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, your edit summary, "cat per discussion", is incorrect and misleading. The discussion does not support your position. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You talk about concensus, got a link as I don't see any? Your talk page also shows that you also seem to like edit warring since we're doing this kind of detective work. Try reading the discussion before calling in your sock/meatpuppets. Palosirkka (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk about ad hominems! I have no sock/meatpuppets. And no, I don't do edit warring; if I did, we'd be past 3RR by now. In any event, you seem to be determined to push the "free software" POV, and edit war rather than discuss; this is clearly beyond my ability to reach consensus, so I'll refer this to others to resolve. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
As for consensus, I'll simply point out that the article was not modified to restore the "free software" portal after the last post in that discussion. Frap apparently agreed not to replace the portal. That counts as consensus. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I call your attention to the request for dispute resolution I posted at the dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't know what consensus you hope to find, besides the "consensus" you create by removing "free software" categories wherever possible. "Free" is defined by secondary sources. If every news source that writes about a product calls it free, who are we to argue? Negating the views of secondary sources clearly seems like WP:OR to me. WCS100 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


Please note that Wikipedia does not apply maintenance tags such as {{notability}} to redirects. If you believe the topic isn't notable, you can always try nominating it for deletion at WP:RFD — but unless you're prepared to actually do so, then the redirect has to stay in place in its existing form. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, please stop removing tags from the license. It is not a neologism and such removal is wrong. Please take part in the discussion instead of acting (incorrectly) on your own. If the community comes to a consensus that the correct term should not be used I will be saddened by a failure of the wiki system but follow the decision nonetheless. I am not reverting your edit because of the 3RR rule.

Please, sign your messages with ~~~~. You're the one acting alone, there is a concensus against that. Wikipedia is not the place for neologisms, there are plenty of other places for that. Palosirkka (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I used to have a script that does the ~~~~ for me, I'm not sure what happened to that. Also, please pretending that copyfree not a commonly understood word in the world of licensing. Perhaps you should join license-discuss, license-review, or even some of the FSF lists before commenting on this topic. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal agenda, there are plenty of other places for that. Voomoo (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears your grasp of the meaning of "consensus" is as shaky as your grasp of "neologism", Palosirkka. - Apotheon (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Your reversion of edits by DarkUranium claim a conflict of interest, but I see zero evidence of that. Please either address where you see evidence of a conflict of interest or refrain from imposing your own biases on Wikipedia articles. - Apotheon (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Says the one with the clearest conflict of interest in this case. Don Cuan (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


I see that you added a screenshot. But you removed the portal tag. Why is that? Also, your screenshot is rather simple. I may replace it with strubin (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Space Telescope Science Data Analysis System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Verbatim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Something for an admin to take a look at[edit]

Is there a rule against very long repetitive copy/paste user pages? Such as this one? Palosirkka (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a rule against inappropriate use of a Talk page while blocked, which this clearly is. The page has already been reverted, so I have revoked the user's ability to edit it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


1. VMD is free to download. Is it not free?

2. Where did you find a reference to the price?


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Palosirkka. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trisquel Edit[edit]

Although this information that releases before Trisquel were based on Debian unstable is believable, can you add a reference or citation to the page? Ziiike (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. That wasn't too easy to find! :) Palosirkka (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mahesh Sarmalkar[edit]

This is not blatant spam; that consists of obvious advertising, which this is not. Feel free to take it to WP:MFD, where your concerns for advertising are valid, but note that a user writing about himself and linking to his company without otherwise talking about it is not an example of "pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Jaron Lanier[edit]

I'm curious where this[1] was published. I also do not understand why you added sic especially since the addition is unsourced--Wlmg (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where the original piece was published. All I can find now are snippets of it. Maybe your search-engine-fu is stronger than mine. I added sic because piracy means attacking ships, not unauthorized copying. Palosirkka (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I actually use Bing for hard-to-find citations. Anecedotaly I have heard piracy refer to illegal copying of intellectual property since at least the 1980s. The tertiary definition given in Websters supports this[2]. --Wlmg (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes I do realize they use the term but it's a smear term, highly loaded and thus shouldn't be accepted at face value. We are trying to maintains a neutral point of view. Palosirkka (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Palosirkka. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 17:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Large scale information censorship[edit]

Hello, Palosirkka

I am seeing you are engaged in large-scale information censorship, removing words like "commercial" and "shareware" whenever you see them. To put it straight, Wikipedia is not censored, meaning you are not allowed to just remove something you don't like unless a certain policy says they are forbidden. MOS:COMPUTING#License says they are allowed.

In multiple instances, you have called these words "pricing info", which is wrong. Pricing info concerns price itself, tax, shipping fees, subscription fees, etc. In another, you have claimed freeware article have said freeware is a pricing scheme. I checked the article and it seems quite to the contrary. But again, software license (as MOS:COMPUTING#License puts it) concerns a lot of things, including "#2, Cost of use (e.g. free of charge, one-time payment, subscription-based, etc.)"

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have seen that you removed sources in one instance. Please don't! If anything, we need more sources, not less. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an unorganized random collection of data. The list articles I have edited have specific fields. E.g. price information goes to price field, license info to license field, shouldn't be too complex. If you feel that some of the information I removed from a wrong field should be preserved, feel free to include it in the correct field. Calling my actions censorship borders a personal attack, please don't do so. And don't bring up unofficial essays as policy! Love Palosirkka (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the opinion of either of you is, you, Palosirkka, are engaged in edit-warring. Please stick to WP:BRD: When someone reverted you and came to your talk page, talk to him; don't counter-revert. Don't edit-war. And I am talking to you too, Codename Lisa. You seem to have reverted twice in one article. (Admins would probably ignore that given its low magnitude, overall effect and the rest of what you did, and the gross behavior of Palosirkka but be careful not to edit war.) Fleet Command (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Palosirkka
MOS:COMPUTING is not an essay. It is a guideline, same status as that of Wikipedia:Notability and most parts of WP:MOS. And I didn't made it a guideline. An admin did. (In fact I half-contested this status promotion but it appears admins know their jobs.) That said, edits in Wikipedia must have consensus. I see that to make your point, you had edited many lists after your point of view is disputed – even you have edited the guideline which you call "unofficial essay" to your own favor! So, please correct me if I am wrong: When you see an entire world in need of editing to match your point of view, then most probably your way does not have the consensus.
That said, it seems you are just seeing the words alone, not their pragmatic meaning. You see "free" and think "free (of charge)" is a comment on price. But the word "freeware" indicates that the product in question (1) is closed-source, (2) can be used and (3) shared with friends and family without restrictions and (4) installed on as many computers as there is in the world. That's four parts license and one part price info. So, is the commercial software: It indicates (1) the closed-source product (2) requires purchase of a license, (3) can only be used by the licensee, (4) can only be installed on a specified number of computers and (5) cannot be shared.
Last but not least, "censorship" is a personal attack outside Wikipedia, but here, it is just a reference to WP:NOTCENSORED. There is a reason to that: In Wikipedia, we face actual literal act of censorship, while in the world outside, there is millions of times unfounded allegation of censorship more than actual censorship itself. I assure you, my friend, if you assume good faith, you will find that the number of people who actually want to offend you are far less than what it might seem.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lisa. I don't know how I managed to mistake that guideline as an essay, for that I'm truly sorry. I would not have edited it had I realized it's not an essay... Let's continue to discuss the actual content of my edits here. Palosirkka (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree to continue the discussion there; after all it has more visibility. As for spat, however, the place of such comments is not there. Even so, did we even have one? Well, I should not comment on myself but your message was very polite and ended with "Love" in the sig; you were careful to write "borders a personal attack" and "Please don't". I also said "if you assume good faith" but it was a general statement and it does not imply that you didn't. User:FleetCommand did have a spat and I see he has reverted a lot of your edits but I told him off. I might sometimes forget that I have previously reverted someone (or I might remember a revert and think somebody else did). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Good! Since we seem to be firmly on the same page now, let's proceed with the making of the encyclopedia! Palosirkka (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fleet Command (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I warn you, Palosirkka. You are continuing to perform disputed form of edit across Wikipedia. This form of eluding consensus is not tolerated. If you do not stop, you risk being reported to WP:ANEW or WP:ARBCOM. Fleet Command (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even see your message before submitting the latest changes... Take it easy. Palosirkka (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Comparison of image viewers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |Proprietary ([[Creative Commons]] Non commercial CC-BY-NC

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Palosirkka. You have new messages at WCS100's talk page.
Message added 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WCS100 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page and instructed you not to use my talk page for an article related discussion any longer. I've also instructed you not to leave {{help}} templates on my talk page. If you need help, you can leave those on your talk page.
As for the issue at hand, I've added two more references to the article that describe it as free and started a discussion on the talk page that you're welcome to join.
As for the rest of the article that you're removing the "Free" adjective from, I'll take a look at them. Your opinion on what's "free" and what's not is original thought or simply your opinion and therefore WP:OR. You should be using secondary sources to back up your opinion. Not attacking people on their talk page and leaving help templates that they don't need (see WP:DTTR). WCS100 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
For the record, adding the {{help}} template to a page is not meant to be used to handle your content disputes. If you had any kind of reason other than a "just because" type argument, I'd be more than happy to discuss things with you but I haven't seen anything to that affect yet. WCS100 (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Palosirkka. You have new messages at Talk:Yuilop.
Message added 19:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Yuilop". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 14:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Palosirkka. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
Message added 20:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RadioFan (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


If you see the state of the page when the project was added [[3]]; someone over-rode the disambiguation page without removing the project. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture for Matthew Garrett[edit]

Thanks for uploading the picture to the Matthew Garrett article. I actually had a tab open to Flickr after searching for good free images and I was planning to upload that exact picture. It was pretty surprising to go back to the article and see it there already! You rock! :) —mako 18:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Information Commons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Boyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Palosirkka (talk) 09:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

HTTPS Everywhere[edit]

I made this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/HTTPS Everywhere - can it be made into a real article? -- (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks very good to me! Nice work. Palosirkka (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enclosure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Boyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Palosirkka (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Source-available" is not "open source"[edit]


I am calling about revision #629682367 of Template:Infobox OS/doc in which you removed "source-available" because you have noticed that it redirects to Open-source software article.

Actually, source-available redirects to Open-source software § Open-source vs. source-available. It cannot have its own article yet, but can have a section in a related article, which happens to be "Open-source software".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ubuntu (operating system). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ubuntu (operating system). The source does not support the addition you're making. There's a discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#What is the development model for Ubuntu?. Feel free to offer your proof, which isn't present in that link to the Ubuntu site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ref name problem on Cascade Falls Regional Park[edit]

thanks for adding the pic, but your refname didn't work, after the 2nd usage the page shows blank, with no cats.....was sure if just adding </ref> would do the trick as I don't use refname much myself. If you live in the area and have GPS on your phone, please go back and take a reading, as regional parks and this particular waterfall aren't in BC Names where I'd normally go for cites; Cascade Creek's BC Names/CGDNB coords are for that creek's mouth into the main/flooded arm of Stave Lake, which is a few miles away.Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. The funny thing is I did do a preview but didn't notice anything was amiss... Should now be fixed. Indeed just closing the tag did the trick (adding a single /). That was not my image, too bad if it's mislabeled. Cute images are good but it would make them so much more valuable if they had proper metadata. Palosirkka (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ring VOIP logo.svg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ring VOIP logo.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)