User talk:intgr

Archives

Archive 1: February 2007 Archive 2: March 2007 Archive 3: May 2007 Archive 4: April 2008 Archive 5: October 2010 Archive 6: March 2012 Archive 7: January 2016

I have reverted your revert; please see the history for details. 46.226.184.124 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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way, I should be able to add mine in a way that makes sense for the page as I did when I originally replaced an outdated reference on a subject matter the page I suggested was immediately relevant to.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 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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 securedatarecovery.com; that's sufficient reason to keep reverting your attempts to insert this link. Also, the datacent.com 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)[reply]

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 When that reference was reverted to an archived version of the old page I replaced, I thought that was understandable so I sought out other ways that would be more acceptable to include a resource I genuinely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 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

i was Special:Contributions/71.121.143.91. 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. 71.121.143.4 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Intgr,

Can you tell me why you removed my info from this page...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOI   ...The info is correct, there just ins't a page on it, yet.

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

@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)[reply]

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. 178.201.2.60 (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Best,
KMeyer (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5355. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 (talk • contribs)

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

Hi Intgr, About the page of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canonical_link_element&oldid=prev&diff=780258584, 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:https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-canonical-issue-in-SEO, 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 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 (talk • contribs)

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi.

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:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Mobile Filter

Thanks

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

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. ThanksOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. ````

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On your SPI addition, you missed one! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EmilyTheEngineer

I would add it to the SPI case, myself, but I've forgotten how to do it.

Cheers, --Nanite (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not entirely sure how, either, but I gave it a shot. -- intgr [talk] 16:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently deleted 3683bytes of shared material from the talkpage of Cybercrime countermeasures, I believe your deletion was against the guidelines for talkpages, so if possible, please refrain from deleting "Shared Material" (even if the material lacks citations, it is for improvement that the material is there for other wikipedians to improve if they wish).

If you did not realise the purpose of talkpage is to improve article (and wikipedia as an encyclopedia), including sharing material on talk page is correct, please undo your removal, unless you have integrated the shared material in another relevent article. If you already integrated the shared material into another article, thereby improving wikipedia, Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.40.121 (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been spamming Wikipedia for years with these sorts of edits, besides posting other inaccurate information. I've been requesting sources (per WP:V) from you, in edit summaries, for months now -- and I also tried to look up sources myself. If you really had any reliable sources to support your claims, we would have seen them by now. It's also fairly clear from your behavior that you're WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia, but to spread your unsubstantiated claims. There can be no fruitful discussion if it's clear you cannot satisfy WP:V and you're trying to game Wikipedia. I think it's pointless to give you the benefit of persisting these unsupported claims even on talk pages.

So I invoke WP:IAR for reverting most of your edits. If you think I've done you injustice, feel free to open a thread at WP:PUMP or Wikipedia:Noticeboards. Keep in mind that you yourself have persistently violated WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. No one will buy your tricks like User talk:126.209.11.21. -- intgr [talk] 16:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section of your talkpage is in response to your removal of content based on pretenses. Months? Years? I`m referring to yesterdays removal of shared material, but since you say you have made efforts, have you access to Nameserver historical records, or records of changes made to Nameservers? like, it seems on another occasion of removal of material you deleted something that said 11/11/11 concerning records of the Registrar of Record, etc? If you couldn`t access those records due to a paywall or equivalent, that does not dispute the records, it`s merely that you haven`t been able to access the sources. I only say that because you say you tried to find sources yourself, but seem to have failed. nevermind, I chimed in to ask you politely not to remove shared material from a talk-page. I apologise if you have integrated the shared material elsewhere in a productive manner. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.40.121 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have persistently removed SHARED MATERIAL from several TALK pages. Furthermore, you seem to have been STALKING the contributor on wikipedia, without respecting the FACTS; As the above response mentions "just because you could`t access the records, DOESN`T DISPUTE THE RECORDS", is very pertinent, especially as you use repetitious accusations of "SPAMMER" and "conspiracy". The thing is, if you know about spam, you also know about DNS records, therefore you have not been intellectually honest; building an encyclopedia requires honesty. Whichever method you employ to impugn the contributor`s integrity, or the integrity of the contributions, accusing them of persistent spamming or persistent conspiracy posting, without acknowledging the INTEGTRITY OF DNS RECORDS, you cannot possibly make objections suggesting the DNS records are "not a verifiable source". I might add, that falsely accusing people of SPAM, and being involved in the logging such on DNS records is not advisable.126.209.0.225 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic. Using sock puppetry, deception and brute force to get your unacceptable material into Wikipedia doesn't seem particularly honest. My previous reply to you pretty much addressed everything you're talking about.

If you want to complain about my behavior, go complain some place else. I just don't care what you have to say. -- intgr [talk] 07:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When are you?

-.^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanitas Cochrane (talk • contribs) 17:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Intgr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the QA on the edDSA article. The "SHA-152" was my dyslexia surfacing. I'm re-adding "SHA-512". In the future feel free to make the correction rather than wholesale reversion. The information was re-added under the ed25519 topic rather than the edDSA topic. The information was missing from the article, and I had to go to the academic paper to find it. Sending people into academic papers rather than wikipedia articles seems like it is missing the point. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Noloader: Oh, sorry, I didn't realize at the time that 152 was just a typo for 512, although it's quite obvious now. I agree it's a good addition. -- intgr [talk] 21:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reading over my edits. I was actually not absolutely 100% certain of my example's correctness, so it was great to have another set of eyes on it. Would you mind adding inline citations in the "Example" section if you know of reliable sources for any of the information contained therein? Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 23:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Steevven1: Hi. Thanks for the edits. Yeah I think the addition is correct. I don't know of any reliable sources that could be used to support this offhand. Why not use the sources from your 'research'? -- intgr [talk] 09:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my sources weren't really suitable. I pieced things together and filled in the gaps with my own reasoning. At this point, I'm pretty sure it's all correct, but I will do my best to introduce citations as I come across better sources. For now, I inserted the "This section doesn't cite any sources" tag. Thanks again. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 13:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Wow! signal, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David J Johnson: Quit being silly. Please see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. My edit wasn't a test edit, I added a relevant link but somehow added a mistake along with it. -- intgr [talk] 20:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not silly. I suggest you check your "contribution" before posting. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per [1], can I draw your attention to WP:ELYES and what's stated in the lead of the guideline you are referring to: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy...Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." best, Acousmana (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acousmana: Hi, please note that WP:ELYES applies to links in the "External links" section. The very first paragraph on WP:EL states "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article"

and clarified in WP:ELPOINTS, which states "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, [...]"

I think you would agree that these record label links are not that relevant in the 'external links' section of a general topic about intelligent dance music? -- intgr [talk] 13:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oh, ok, I misread it, had assumed it was pointing to acceptable exceptions for ex-linkage in main body, do you object to presenting these discographies as cites or [nb]s? Acousmana (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acousmana: I'm afraid they're not that useful as citations either. Discogs could be used to cite the existence and the founding year of these record labels; in other contexts for tracklists etc. But in this context, really useful sources would be descriptive sources that explain the historical significance of these labels in the formation of the ambient techno genre. And while I consider Discogs to be among the most reliable music databases, as far as Wikipedia goes I think it may fall under WP:USERGENERATED and not be considered a reliable source.

I'm not saying "no", but I would vote for "meh". -- intgr [talk] 14:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Intgr,

Thanks for the note about Log management debugging. I'm not disputing it, I'm new to this and need a little help. I just read the link guidelines, and think the article I linked to, met them. Then I found the in the history it was reasoned as not a reliable source. Was that the reason?

Thanks, Bill @Intgr: (William.scully (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@William.scully: Sorry for the delay, I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately. Generally, linking to websites that try to sell their product (unless it's the official website of the article's subject), is considered spam. Such websites also are very likely to be biased towards the given product, so they're generally not reliable sources too. In addition, I noticed that you tried to add loggly.com links to multiple articles; and before you, there was also 50.0.134.125, which is another sign of spamming. If you have any affiliations with the subjects you edit about, you need to be very careful and follow the conflict of interest guideline. -- intgr [talk] 13:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on DKMS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Legacypac (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Sorry, I redirected DKMS, I thought you flagged it for deletion simply because don't like the disambig page. However, do not perform cut-and-paste moves. If some page is preventing your move, request it at WP:Requested moves instead. -- intgr [talk] 11:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tag for history merge myself. Same effect. Legacypac (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I disagree, it's not the "same effect". Histmerge leaves the page's edit history as a mess often; also people who had the old page on their watch list won't transfer over with histmerge (as opposed to a proper move). You should always avoid it and use WP:RM. -- intgr [talk] 12:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I am granted pagemover I'll not need RM - and in the mean time I'll use history merge (which will not leave a mess for a simple move like this one, or CSD or whatever works best at the time. I effectively did a RM via CSD until you removed my CSD without reading the talkpage. You than posted that I did a move from Draft out of process without looking at my edit history to see I'm heavily involved at AfC. I'd advise not jumping to any more conclusions and stop working against me here. Legacypac (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac I agree with intgr - the copy/paste move was bad practice. What was very bad was that you didn't copy/paste the PAID tag from the talk page too. You violated the terms of use by neglecting that. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quack? --Muhandes (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: Yep, I think you're right, reported. -- intgr [talk] 00:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what is the problem with the Reliability? Could you propose any changes to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.82.39.172 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:PostgreSQL#Reliability section. -- intgr [talk] 15:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of ASN.1 tools is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of ASN.1 tools until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hardened Gentoo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardened Gentoo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... ( seems nominator has not notified you) 05:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if my WP:PING worked. In case not, this message is to let you know that I recently asked a question at the Teahouse about some IP addresses that I think might be connected to the "hydro dot net" editor about whom you created a long-term abuse page. If you want to respond to it, please reply there. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazpot: Thanks. The ping worked too; I replied at Teahouse. -- intgr [talk] 21:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For diligently creating Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Hydro_dot_net and for diligently continuing to update it, especially in the face of so much inaction, indifference, or ineffectiveness from admins. I hope that one day an admin with similar levels of diligence to you will make use of the evidence you collected, and finally block the vandal. Zazpot (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a fairly peculiar post by an IP "Prevention of abuse-of-priviledges and concealment" at WP:EAR on 6 November. Its pretty incomprehensible, however the OP appears to be protesting about the LTA hydro dot net case and requesting someone look into it. I thought you might be interested considering you authored the case. Apologies if this is the wrong place to put this. Curdle (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've replied to the EAR discussion. -- intgr [talk] 22:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I "re-worded" the text since, in my opinion, it didn't cover the source. Feel free to modify. Cheers Wicky75 (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, noticed you have been deleting material which does not seem contentious or abusive or out-of-the-ordinary, including material up for discussion on the TALKPAGE of the UK Serious Crime Office article. Perhaps you should make better use of the summary field when you delete contributions. Please bear in mind that "Edits" are made to articles, not to TALKPAGES of articles, and as such, you have been summarizing your deletions improperly. Cheers160.86.225.226 (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I noticed that you have been editing and edit warring from over 200 different IP addresses. Be advised that when your IP address is banned, continuing to edit from other IP addresses is considered block evasion and doing it for this long and on this scale is considered long-term abuse. The recommended action is to revert such edits. My edit summaries appropriately label these reverts as due to block evasion and long-term abuse. -- intgr [talk] 19:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same one from Talk:Ilhan Omar? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: Yes, in fact it is. They looked unrelated to me as well at first, but looking in detail, there is lots of overlap in the IPs' editing patterns, I believe the evidence is solid. There are lots different of agendas this editor is trying to push, that's nothing new. Have a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hydro dot net, although I can't really be bothered with keeping that page up to date. -- intgr [talk] 00:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting—what threw me were the seemingly slight differences in writing style. However, both seem pretty similar. This individual, if it's a single person, has wasted a lot of time and caused quite a fracas. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that troublesome IP vandal at Talk:Ilhan Omar. I was considering filing an WP:ANI report, but let me know if you think that's still necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: I'm not very familiar with the ANI noticeboard. If you think it would help, go for it, I would appreciate any help to deal with this abuser. There is no question that they will be back and keep going.

I'd like to get the whole new /16 IP range blocked (see Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Hydro dot net#New rangeblock) and see if that alleviates the issue -- last time it seemed to, for a while. -- intgr [talk] 15:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apple Inc. ex-employees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - Paul^T+/_C 14:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#126.209.22.197 problematic editing. Is this him? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems yes; I replied there. -- intgr [talk] 12:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to our crypto articles, here's your accordion :-) Nothing wrong with your edits on Interplanetary File System, but you should be aware of the discretionary sanctions on cryptocurrency/blockchain articles - David Gerard (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Comparison of Radeon RX 5700 models has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is a "buyers guide" rather than an encyclopedic entry.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wikiinger (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect PiB. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 20#PiB until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Neon (library) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. neon is a minor library which wraps around OpenSSL, GnuTLS and libxml or expat and while it is used in some notable projects, it is not notable on its own. The only provided source mentions it only in passing. I'll add all other sources I can find, but it's not enough to hinge notability on.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: Fair enough. I think I didn't understand the notability guideline back in 2007 when I created that article. :) -- intgr [talk] 08:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Intgr: I actually tried to improve the article, but I could find only one suitable source (man page). Like most software libraries, Neon is simply too niche and technical for a Wikipedia article. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetooth stack (cite "Bluetooth Audio Streaming on Linux-Based Embedded Devices"):

• Selim Çιracι; Evren Karaca; Mark Reşat Pariente (2006-05-19). "Bluetooth Audio Streaming on Linux-Based Embedded Devices" (PDF). Bilkent University. Retrieved 2007-03-05. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://resat.ug.bilkent.edu.tr/Resources/cs515term.pdf

is a dead link, no copies were ever archived, no references by anyone have ever been made by anyone not copying wikipedia. The authors have never written anything else in any way related to Bluetooth. Therefore I must delete this reference. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 7nm. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 21#2 nm until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jörg Schilling. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GM83 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect HAIFA. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#HAIFA until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 22:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Roborock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PamD 15:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bignic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Inconsequential person

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Serious Tubes Networks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serious Tubes Networks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DefaultFree (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article BestCrypt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No third party sources, no evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of applications using PKCS 11 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a software directory

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Cone of answers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 26 § Cone of answers until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]