User talk:TheSameGuy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Windows 7 do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandboxie

Can we talk about this? AuricBlofeld (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would like to know why you keep removing practically everything from the article and adding in only techrepublic or pcauthority links?

I and a few others have been working on the Sandboxie article for months and months now, keeping it up-to-date, adding in new content/links, etc..

Then out of nowhere, here you come and wipe every single thing out of the article...

I dont mean to post this in a bragging arrogant way, but I have been been using Sandboxie for 4 years now, I have been associated with the project for 2.5 years now, I had been the global mod (the only one btw) of the Sandboxie forums for just over 2 years now. I have personal communication with the developer, I have contributed to the program, I have vast understanding of the technology and application, etc..

Doing so has allowed me to keep the article updated, to correct mistakes others make about the program, to add in new news, to update the article with information straight from the dev, I am always aware of new reviews/articles written on Sandboxie and can link to them on the wiki page, I know when shows/podcasts are done on Sandboxie (Such as the securitynow podcast) and can link to those as well, etc..

What reason is there really to remove the description of the author/developer of the program, the "Features" section, to remove all content describing how Sandboxie works, to remove Sandboxie related information, even info such as updates on the status of x64 compatibility, or hell, to even remove references to the Sandboxie programs OWN site?

If you want to contribute to the article and add in some stuff, or to move some small things here and there to another section of the article, or to correct minor mistakes, stuff like that is fine, no problem. However dont jump on and wipe practically everything out of the article that people have spent a couple years on creating.... TheSameGuy (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm sorry. And sorry about the late reply, I just reccently realised that you replied to my message and I had a forced wiki break for a while. Okay, your questions, I removed practically everything because I considered them unreliably sourced and unencyclopedic, I used the techrepublic and the PCauthortity links because they appear to be more in line with wikipedia's reliable source guideline. Also, the past article didn't seem to have the enough references for notability. Anyways, read this, 2.2 and 2.3 and you'd probably understand my predicament.

As to why I removed the prosed mention of Tzur as the developer. That was pure error on my part, and I apologize, I was comparing Sandboxie to some other higher graded software articles and found that some didn't have it so I removed it. I later replaced it when I found some good ones that do.

Anyways, I don't see any harm in moving back some of the old stuff that was moved away, so feel free to put those sections back.AuricBlofeld (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem man, no need to apologize, I just wanted to clear up why I kept moving everything back to the article. I too have been on a wiki break for a while now as well as being sick the last few days, hence the reason I didn't see your message til today (albeit, I see it is only 2 days old, but still).

I'll go ahead and take your suggestions though and make sure the article has enough references after this, also I will try to remove some of the misc content that is unencyclopedic. TheSameGuy (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:RedHatLinux9.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RedHatLinux9.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the File:RedHatLinux9.png as per your request. I added the correct information, descriptions and license to the article and a "Non-free/Fair use" explanation/rationale is no longer needed for the image, as it is not licensed under "Fair Use" now but instead under the correct license of GPL. I trust this will solve any issues Wikipedia may have with the image and I politely request the Speedy Deletion tag be removed from the file page. TheSameGuy (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Valomilk 1678.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Valomilk 1678.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu (operating system)

Just so I understand this correctly, you removed these reliable sources because...they aren't reliable? There are plenty of sources for that information that gives it WP:WEIGHT, whether DistroWatch is reliable for the purpose of...DistroWatch page hits is inconsequential, because reliable sources have written entire articles about this very subject. This is no different than an individual not being a reliable source, but when reliable sources comment on him, they are. - SudoGhost 19:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to say, but no, the reason I removed it is because this specific content, "Based on page impressions on DistroWatch..." itself is not encyclopedic, and so it doesn't matter that the content was referenced by 3rd party sources, that content still can't be included because the DistroWatch page hits aren't considered encyclopedic. Hope that makes sense. TheSameGuy (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an empty rationale for removing content. Not encyclopedic per what? It is "encyclopedic" per WP:WEIGHT. It matters completely that it was referenced by third-party sources, that's how articles are written. Reliable sources guide content, not editor opinion on what is "encyclopedic" or not. - SudoGhost 19:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's "unencyclopedic" in the sense that the specific content in the Ubuntu article (that starts with "Based on page impressions on DistroWatch") can't be included because the Distrowatch page hits are user generated content and also can't be verified, so no it doesn't matter that 3rd party sources reference Distrowatch's Page Rankings, the content itself still can't be included in the article. TheSameGuy (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works, I'm afraid. Your interpretation of WP:USERG isn't reflected by the guideline itself. None of those sources are self-published, not a single one. DistroWatch is not the source, it is the subject. PC World is not a self-published source, nor is it user-generated. WP:USERG does not apply to those sources. WP:USERG does not say "reliable sources cannot be used as sources if they discuss page hits or user-generated data". Otherwise it would be impossible to have an article on IMDB, for example. - SudoGhost 20:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could have an article on IMDB actually, because the IMDB article would be discussing IMDB itself (the company, employees, their site, etc..) which is verifiable. But you couldn't have an article on, or including information from IMDB as it's not reliable.

Since you mentioned IMDB, think of this scenario. Imagine you look up a movie on IMDB to see its rating, such as on IMDB's top 250 list. You see it's the 4th rated movie and decide to add something like "As of July 2012, movieX was rated the 4th greatest movie according to IMDB's top 250 chart" to the movies wiki article. Then you decide to reference that using an article that mentions IMDB's top 250 from something like Hollywood.com as the source. Do you think that it would be ok then to include that line in the article?

Truth is, it wouldn't be allowed, because IMDB's top 250 chart is not verifiable (as well as a lot of other IMDB content) as the rankings are the result of multiple anonymous users. This is why you don't see a movie's top 250 position on any article here on Wikipedia.

This is exactly the same thing that the Ubuntu ranking suffers though. Take my example and replace IMDB with Distrowatch and Hollywood.com with PCworld and it's the same issue.

In this case Distrowatch's page ranking is just like the IMDB top 250 ranking. The distros rankings are the result of anonymous user's page visits, thus they're not verifiable (who clicked that distros page?, how many times did they click it?, what's their name?, etc..) and so it's page ranking can't be included in an article. However, if Distrowatch themselves (such as an editor) made a top 10 distros page and decided to rank the distros themselves, then you could include that into an article as it's verifiable (it's written by *editor's name here* on behalf of Distrowatch), see the difference? TheSameGuy (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're sidestepping the part that matters, Distrowatch is not the source. Therefore everything you've said thus far is irrelevant, because your using the logic that DistroWatch is the source, not the subject. You can argue against all the policies and guidelines you'd like, the information is backed by multiple reliable sources, and that's how article content is determined. If you disagree, you're welcome to discuss it at the guideline's talk page and get a consensus to change the guideline. Short of that, I don't see anything else to discuss, and as your edits have been reverted by two different editors, you'd need to discuss and gain consensus to make your changes again. - SudoGhost 22:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I had seen many people post ratings/rankings from places like IMDB, Distrowatch, poll sites, survey sites, etc.. into wiki articles before and they'd always be reverted by users for the reason being that "ratings or votes" can't be included as it's not verifiable if the votes/ratings are generated by anonymous users, a few times I even seen admins (or at least people with some admin rights?) doing the reverting. So, because I had put trust into what those people said/did, and read the WP links they provided in their edit summaries (which I mis-understood), I had come to the wrong conclusion that regardless of what or how many sources are provided for a particular claim, if the claim itself was not verifiable then it couldn't be included.

However, while you were gone and before your previous post, I had asked a question to an Admin about whether the Distrowatch hit counter could be used and was told that it couldn't be used as the primary source in an article, but as long as the content in the article mentions where that content comes from (in our case Distrowatch) and the content is referenced by at least one independent reliable source, then it can be used, regardless how incorrect or "unverifiable" that content may be in the first place. So now I understand correctly.

So you see, I was not side-stepping anything, and I never thought "Distrowatch was the source" as you put it (I knew the 3 references were the source and already mentioned that earlier), but I had incorrectly assumed the content in an article itself had to be verifiable first regardless of the references it may have.

However, instead of being helpful, you didn't assume good faith, practically attacked/harassed me and had a condescending tone (particularly in your last response), which isn't much of a help at all. TheSameGuy (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:AAGF; it works both ways. I'm sorry if you feel I "attacked/harassed" you, but I promise you that wasn't my intention. My only intention was to clarify why you insisted on the change. - SudoGhost 00:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)