User talk:Dodi 8238/Archive 1

Linux Mint talk page dispute concerning DistoWatch statistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Content_dispute_with_User:Aoidh_on_Linux_Mint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Aoidh_reported_by_User:CodeCat_.28Result:_.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGoodName (talk • contribs) 04:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean …
"not encyclopedic enough"? --J.Ammon (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I misininterpreted your edit as replacing facts with vagueness. I restored your input here. Notice that your edit had essentially removed a key point.--Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC) comment edited 20:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! I didn't find any valid criticism of the MTProto protocol when scanning through the cited references, they all dealt primarily with the contest. That's why I deleted that part.
 * Could you point me to some specific critique of the MTProto protocol? I was actually looking for this. Then I could rearrange/sort the references about the contest and about the protocol itself.
 * Thanks again for your quick clarification! --J.Ammon (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your reason for removing that part. You might have a point there, so I've removed it for now. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I did some reading for myself. (Note to self: I should do that more often!)
 * One of the references actually deals with the protocol, not the contest. (Not sure why I skipped that in the first place.) So I rephrased the paragraph once more, I hope that it's ok for you. --J.Ammon (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you
For you advice about edit summaries. It will help me in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beachez (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! Remember to sign your comments with four tildes: . --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks : ) Beachez (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cease and Desist
Can you NOT stalk me.

Thank you,

--JT2958 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We have edited a common article (Christopher Langan), but that is not stalking. See WP:HOUNDING for a description of what stalking would imply here on Wikipedia. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC) comment edited 17:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Public health nursing move
Hi! I notice that earlier in the year you moved Public health nursing over a redirect to Public Health Nursing with the edit summary, "capitalization of job title". That's got me a bit confused because I thought article titles were lower case with the exception of proper names, which "public health nursing" is not. For comparison, Surgical nursing, Forensic nursing, and so on. Would you agree to my undoing the move, leaving a redirect from Public Health Nursing? I'm aiming for consistency across the article titles in the nursing categories. A small point I know! Cheers, Basie (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, that's a good point. Thanks for notifying me! --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now moved the page myself. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's service! Thanks so much for your prompt attention to this. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism re WatchMojo
As someone who's followed WatchMojo since 2006, I find your initial changes to be akin to "Vandalism" in that you removed a lot of valuable and pertinent info on the company, stripping away a lot of info that us fans/followers have on the site. I appreciate the rationale to some of those removals (Recentism, etc) but the info I included recently are certainly material, impartial and pertinent. I am simply a follower/viewer of WatchMojo, but your militant removal of so many important facts make it seem like you are an impartial critic, or worse, work for a competitor. Why remove so many important facts about the site's success, reach etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.53.30 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If there is something in particular that I (or anyone else) have removed from the article and that you would like to have added back to the article, please bring the matter up on the article's talk page. See Talk page guidelines. Remember to sign your comments with four tildes: . --Dodi 8238 (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Evolution article lead
Hi User:Dodi_8238, Thanks for your attention to the lead of the Evolution article, in which you describe that you  "...removed distinction between macroevolution and microevolution from lead. It was out of context and gave undue weight to the distinction. These terms are distinguished in the Outcomes section."

Yes, at present the concept of evolution at different scales (micro vs macroevolution) is only explicitly developed in the Outcomes section, and context and weighting are important (WP:Lead). I suggest that it is appropriate to include the concept in the lead, with better integration with current lead text, and that the significance needs to be better established in the main text, based on key reliable references.

Please consider the organization and content of the following online source, which is excellent as a clear and concise treatment of evolution:


 * Understanding Evolution Website 2014. Understanding evolution: your one-stop source for information on evolution. Collaborative project of University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.  Accessed 13-Dec-2014.


 * Evolution 101
 * • An introduction to evolution
 * • The history of life: looking at the patterns
 * • Mechanisms: the processes of evolution
 * • Microevolution (How does evolution work on a small scale?)
 * • Speciation
 * • Macroevolution (How does evolution work on a grand scale?)
 * • The big issues


 * "The definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."


 * "Mechanisms of microevolution: There are a few basic ways in which microevolutionary change happens. Mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are all processes that can directly affect gene frequencies in a population."


 * "Macroevolution: Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction."

TheProfessor (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Evolution is a Featured article. While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner [[Image:LinkFA-star.png|14px]]) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the article's talk page first.
 * Regarding the lead of Evolution: Editors have been explicitly asked not to change it without consulting the discussion page first. The lead has been discussed and there is general consensus that it is the best one for now.
 * With this in mind, I encourage you to read Talk:Evolution/FAQ (specifically Q6) and to start a new discussion on Talk:Evolution if you still think that the distinction is necessary in the lead. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits to 'List of video telecommunication services and product brands'
Hi, looks like you removed StarLeaf and ClearOne from this page on 18th January, I'm guessing because their names appeared to link to non-existent Wikipedia pages. They are still relevant to this page though. I'm guessing the capitalization of their names caused them to appear as links so will try to re-add them in such a way that they don't appear as links. Hope that's OK.Abesharp (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit in question. I removed all products, brands, and services that were not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. On 18th January, that included StarLeaf and ClearOne. If you want to re-add the entries to the List of video telecommunication services and product brands page, please write the articles first. See WP:WTAF. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC) [edited 05:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)]

Monthly breakdown of total daily page views
Hello there! I'm glad to see that you've found part of my user page to be on your user page as well. :) However, stats values displayed through the vertical bars in  section seem to be way off, at least based on traffic stats for the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Libraries, TextSecure and Open Whisper Systems articles.  Of course, that's the case if the breakdown shows stats for those three articles only, what would be implied by where it's placed. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing. I tried to replicate what you did, but this website isn't working so I calculated the data manually. The OWS article was renamed on 1 Jan 2015 from "Open WhisperSystems" to "Open Whisper Systems". For example, the December '14 number (8610) came from adding up 156, 6036, 187, and 2231. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that stats utility stopped working some time ago and I'm still waiting for it to become available again instead of removing it from the wording on my user page – it was really that usable. :)  Regarding your summary stats value for December 2014, it should be (156 + 6036 + 187 + 2231) / 31 ≈ 278, instead of 8610.  In other words, that's the number of daily views, not the sum (or total) of daily views per month. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. So if I change the title from "Monthly breakdown of total daily page views" to "Total daily page views per month", would that fix it? --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, that would be another option. However, having daily views instead of monthly totals is more common in various web-related stats, and is more usable for sensing how much traffic some articles receive. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the feedback! I'll fix the stats. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for summing up those stats values. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. I browsed Tool Labs and found a fix for that website. Apparently there's a new one called wikiviewstats2. The stats end at 20th Sep. 2014, though. Here's the project page: de:Wikipedia:Wiki ViewStats. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC) [edited 17:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)]


 * Hm, I wonder why no recent stats data is available? It's really sad that apparently nobody is working on bringing those highly useful stats back online. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! Just as a note, you might want to have a look at a PHP program that calculates summary monthly page views stats for a list of articles – wrote it today so tedious and error-prone manual summing up is no longer required. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Great work! I've now used it to calculate stats for articles I've started here on the English Wikipedia and on the Finnish Wikipedia. Thanks! --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm glad that you like it. :) I'm going to keep improving the PHP program, so you might want to check it out from time to time. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Content deleted
@Dodi8234, I understand your advice, but I think that the complete deletion of my ads is not justified. Take for example this page : there are databases added and there are not deleted (I refer to less known). Here I was simply giving a suggestion on a relevant topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.62.164 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2015‎


 * Far too many lists are full of this kind of spam. There was already a hidden note at the top of the list that said "please add only vendors with articles" before you added CryptonorDB to it. I've now cleaned that section up per WP:WTAF. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

DRAFT: GTCHANNEL
DODI 8238

Looks like I failed my first attempt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GTChannel What a newbie. It was suggested I show notability via significant coverage documentation and other. In writing the article I sourced as much as I could find out there online. Not sure where else to turn to find more additional info. I know if the digital media world it well known. Rob INTERSTREAMER (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)(INTERSTREAMER)


 * As the reviewer said on their talk page, if there aren't other sources that discuss the subject, then it doesn't yet meet the requirements for inclusion per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Not all subjects are notable. You can always return to the draft later if you find news articles, books, or other sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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 this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "The Selfish_Gene". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of several XMPP clients
you did remove without notice several clients in that page Comparison of XMPP clients

why not putting a notice so that error can be resolved before making this deletion

may be accept that i undo your deletion and try to solve the link issue ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.60.126.129 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit in question. As you can see, I did provide a brief explanation of my edit in the edit summary: "removed Conversations, Freelab and InTouch per WP:WTAF". Please familiarize yourself with the essay that I linked to in my edit summary. If you want to add Conversations (software), Freelab Messenger and/or InTouch Messenger back to Comparison of XMPP clients, please write the article(s) first. Note that new articles must satisfy the notability guideline and core content policies. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC) [edited 08:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)]

SMSSecure
I'm sorry for this revision. I am behind a proxy, and the source page was not accessible to me. But I wonder why does the slovakian newspaper mention it in his postall the applications listed below, according to the EFF reached the highest score, thus meeting the following seven conditions: encrypted transmission, provider of software can not decrypt user communication, it is possible to verify the identity of the contacts, existing communication is safe even if there is the theft of your keys, code application is opened, and it is therefore possible independent control, the actual algorithm of encryption that work is documented in accordance with current standards, and the application code has been recently reviewed by an independent entity.. Sorry, and best regards. Asr (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * From Google Translate:
 * In general, mainly for technological reasons it is not possible to directly encrypt phone calls. Therefore, the encryption of voice transmission using VoIP (Voice over Internet). Thus, the voice is transmitted as Internet data. A similar situation exists in sending SMS. The only exception is SMSSecure application that encrypts SMS messages directly. Other applications operate on the principle of chat clients.
 * The article is just suggesting to use SMSSecure for encrypted SMS/MMS messaging. It does not say that the EFF gave any kind of score to SMSSecure on their secure messaging scorecard. You can confirm this by reading through the scorecard itself and checking the changelog at the bottom of the page. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

New Kin Community page
Hi there, I added a bunch more references to meet notability requirements for the Kin Community page. References include interviews, magazine and the Emmys. Let me know what you think. User:Ciaran.lyons — Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the notability template. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please help me
Hello please help me, I see your link WP:WTFA, but not understand the reason for deletion of line, which i was write. please clear the reason, I was edit few line in this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_communication, regrading GhostMail and you delete it. may be the reason is missing for not write bracket, that's why delete it, please clear this mention. thanks04:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J13m7 (talk • contribs)


 * The edit in question. According to WP:WTAF, editors are encouraged to write the article on a given subject before adding it to lists, disambiguation pages, or templates. GhostMail does not have an article about it here on the English Wikipedia, and that is why I removed it from the Secure communication list. Please note that new articles must satisfy the notability guideline and core content policies. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

On the mailx changes
An actively maintained program that ships with several distributions is classified as SPAM by you? You should be reported to Wikipedia and prevented from further edits if YOU have nothing else to do. Thank YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.139.233 (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You have used two different IP addresses ( and ) to add (and now re-add) the same external link, S-nail's SourceForge page, to multiple pages on Wikipedia that are not about S-nail. Please familiarize yourself with WP:LINKSPAM. The problem is not whether or not the program is actively maintained or not. The problem is that the "S-nail mailx(1)manual" that you have linked to in the external links sections of mailx and mail (Unix) is not about mailx or mail (Unix), but about S-nail. According to WP:ELNO, "one should generally avoid providing external links to any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [edited 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)]


 * Yes, i've used three different IP addresses.
 * No, it IS about mailx, because it IS mailx. And the linked manual is the most comprehensive manual of mailx that i know about (except for the POSIX standard manual entry of mailx), having the advantage that it is fully cross-referenced.  Right?  Now you've removed an external referencal, even improved it, to Purdue University.  Do you have read this page, and if, why do you remove the S-nail manual link and keep that one in -- because of the name they use, mailx?  That page is almost content-free, and otherwise it could be seen as advertisement for that University, right.  Anyway, if you continue to remove those links then i'll add a link to the ArchLinux Wiki entry mailx, even though that explains the same program.  What else could i do to provide a reference to the most comprehensive manual on (an extended, just like Heirloom mailx) mailx except the POSIX standard entry for Wikipedia users?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.236.240 (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. If S-nail really is the same as mailx and not just a competing product from an entirely different group of developers, I'll let it be. But just so you know, external links sections are not meant to be directories of manuals. Someone else can remove both the mailx Tutorial from the engineering Dpt. at Purdue University and the S-nail mailx(1)manual (and any other how-to-guides, manuals or tutorials) from the EL section of mailx in the future. Open wikis (such as the ArchLinux Wiki entry mailx) are on the list of things that shouldn't be linked to from EL sections. The Heirloom Project's "History of mail and mailx" is problematic because it is a self-published source, but will probably be turned into one or more inline citations if someone starts a new section about the history of mailx. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. :) Yes, the referenced Heirloom mailx_history.html is debatable in any form, but i don't know anything better either. Placing it in a "References" section is very problematic in my opinion; i think i'll add the POSIX standard entry there, which is possibly the only correct thing to do.  Maybe i would replace that "history" link with a sole inline "it was present already in First Edition Unix from 1971, and/but has been completely reinvented for 2BSD [after Seventh Edition Unix] in 1978".  Someone should spend some time on these pages. ;)
 * Ah, ok, well i don't really work with Wikis normally, i just consume their content, but thanks for the info. :) Maybe you get invited to some of those nice trips the Wikipedians do to come together and spend all the donations? :-))
 * Hei hei Dodi! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.236.240 (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

About your censoring of List of devices supported by CyanogenMod
You are not improving Wikipedia by deleting useful content. Shame on you! I will not support Wikipedia economically anymore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.113.82 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you believe that the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, please see Deletion review. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Untitled discussion
I completely disagree with the order of discussion between Darwin and Cook. Darwin does not use the term speciation in The Origin of Species. The three citations about Cook are dea links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorofScience1949 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Thought" implies philosophy, — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorofScience1949 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrecking of List of utility cooperatives
I think your wrecking of this site, by ripping out hundreds of links and then by adding hundreds of [citation needed] tags, is a great shame. The external links (fine, you removed as per a policy) were clear establishment that these organisations exist but to then, having chosen to trash the proof, claim that proof is required that these organisation exist and/or are Utility Co-operatives, is a very poor show. If you'd taken the time to explore a few of the links, you would have discovered how genuine they are. Were I the only Wikipedian to have such grumbles over your actions, then I would view my thoughts as perhaps unreasonable, but I see that I am far from alone in having the opinion that your are damaging the cataloguing of genuine knowledge. Wikipedia exists to share knowledge, not destroy it. Simonjon (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think that those links could have been used as references, feel free to re-add them as references. After all, External_links says that the "section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria". Be sure to check the links before you add them as references, though. That might imply an unnecessary level of distrust in the links in this case. I could have probably just turned the links into references myself. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [edited 09:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)]


 * I have now restored the list to how it was before I "wrecked" it. The external links still need to be turned into references, though. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You look like you know your way around here
Hey, I noticed that this guy is going around pages adding age to companies infoboxes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marioluigi98 I'm rather new to Wiki and not sure what to do in this situation. I've posted on his talk page (which seems full of complaints along similar lines). Not sure if this constitutes vandalism, that would be a bit harsh. But this dude is definitely not helping Wikipedia with those edits that go against the standardized template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgeGregg (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes. It was me. Thanks, bot JudgeGregg (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've now to Marioluigi98's talk page. Let's continue the discussion there. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bouhriz10
I spotted your AIV report before you reverted it, and it seems to me that this is just a new user who doesn't really know the ropes and is making mistakes - I don't really see a vandal. Also, the warnings are rather spread out and I see no friendly attempts to reach out and help, just a few plastered warnings. I'm going to give them a welcome message now, but if you see them making mistakes again, how about just offering a personal message explaining the problem and see how that goes? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'll do that next time. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

About your, mine [and others] reverts
Hi, as you are new to me, reverted me (ok), and I you again (with long text A.-E. ..) at constructor theory talk page. I would like to know if I should trim/delete my text, at the talk page. You might agree now, and the article might, on it's own, indicate peer-review status. Then, no need for others to read my long text then..(?) I see another one has commented. Feel free to there (or here, and maybe tell me about yourself) comment and/or trim. I'm just trying to do the right thing, should read more of what you point to.. I'm just a physics amateur.. mostly edit computer related articles, where I feel most qualified, and then some others, e.g. medical, where I try to be extra careful.. I'm next going to discuss/revert a different thing, if you like to comment.. comp.arch (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

List of universities in Denmark
First of all thank you for all your contributions to articles about educational institutions in Denmark! As for the list of universities in Denmark, I am wondering if Copenhagen Business Academy shouldn't take Niels Brock's place? More generally, I am wondering if it wouldn't give a better overview if all the fefunct (pre-merger) institutions were moved to a separate list (on the same page)? Well I'm sure you have already considered that option but I just think that the vast majority of readers will only be interested in active schools. Should KEA – Copenhagen School of Design and Technology be added to the list?Ramblersen (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing those up. I've now started separate sections for vocational universities (erhvervsakademi) and former universities and colleges in Denmark. The interesting thing about Copenhagen Business Academy is that it's a merger of programmes from four different institutions. Based on their own websites, it appears like at least Niels Brock and the Copenhagen Hospitality College continue to be independent institutions. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed Niels Brock from the list because it's a school of secondary education and it appears like the tertiary education programmes were merged into Copenhagen Business Academy. KEA is now in the vocational universities section. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is very confusing with all those mergers and it is very difficult to find spurces that meet wikiepdia's standards. Witin the area of secondary education, Copenhagen Technical College and Cph West just merged into some gigantic monstrum called NEXT or NEXT EDU or something like that (I really don't hope they paid someone to come up with that name!). I think it would be useful with one or two "Education in Copenhagen" nav bars. I tend to think that the best solution is a "Higher education in Copenahgen" nav bar and a separate "Sedondary education in Copenhagen" nav bar rather than fitting everything into one. What do you think and would you have an opinion about how they are (or it is) best structured.Ramblersen (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

'conflict of interest'
my edits are accurate and supported by citations. The information corrected is not supported and is innacurate, simply of low quality. Furthermore, I don't know who is interested in posting low-quality edits to Sci-Hub page? Mindwrapper (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I was not the user who reverted your edits in the Sci-Hub article. I just wanted to let you know about our conflict of interest guideline because, in, you wrote that you are a Sci-Hub developer. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for information. I'm new to Wikipedia, but the reason I am not contributing to it, is simple: all your edits will simply be undone, even if they are true and are supported by evidence. The Sci-Hub page is only the most obvious example of this. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwrapper (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 March 2016‎


 * The user who reverted your edits also reverted the contributions of a lot of other editors. I think this was inconsiderate, and . --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I try to make it a point to always write something in my edit summaries (per WP:FIES). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with that speedy deletion. People should read approved materials only.
Korablino (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, if that's what you mean by "people should read approved materials only". That does not, however, mean that user pages can be used as repositories (= storage locations) for original research. According to WP:UPNOT, user pages may not contain substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia. This includes:
 * Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)
 * I nominated your user page for speedy deletion under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because you were clearly using it as a repository for original research, despite having been notified about our policies by another editor already in February 2012. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Quick question for you.
Hi Dodi 8238,

Thanks for the welcome! I hope to contribute much here. :) I tried to read docs as much as I could before doing any editing. Hoping I didn't mess it up too bad. :) I'm not real familiar with this whole Talk page thing though. Thanks for the guidance on my edit. I see what you did converting them to References...that does make more sense. I had a quick question about the third party reference you were requesting. It's one of those things that people involved with WordPress are familiar with, but I see why it would be better for third party reference as well. There are a ton of potential resources to use. I think this is the most impartial one (and I hope it's ok to post it here..if not let me know and I'll delete): ManageWP.org: Most Downloaded Plugins in "Antispam" category ...is that more what you're going for? It would work for all three. If not, please let me know. Hope this isn't too trivial. I really appreciate your help. :)

Also, regarding the undoing of my edit to the Security through Obscurity article, I was actually correct about it being the sole method. That was what needed clarification. There is a commonly spread incorrect understanding of this, that it is any use of obscurity, but the phrase actually is only referring to implementations where the entire security is dependent on obscurity. That clarification was specifically needed. There is much bad info floating around on that topic. It is important for people to understand this, which is why I made the edit. Please see the OWASP references. OWASP is an authority, not open wiki. That was a legitimate and correct edit that I contributed. That was a bit discouraging to see it rolled back. Another source that helps clarify this definition as well: Obscurity is a Valid Security Layer From that article:

Definitions:

Obscurity as a Layer: Obscurity as a layer makes a system with already good defenses more difficult to target, which improves its overall security posture.

Security Through Obscurity: Security through Obscurity means that, once targeted, the system will be defenseless, i.e. all its security comes from secrecy.

Please reconsider. :) Maybe I should add that quote?

RSTech1 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding Akismet: Sections like this are WP:SPAMBAIT and should always be sourced with independent, reliable sources. The managewp.org page you found is just raw data, and is not enough to satisfy the third-party sources requirement. Try to find e.g. articles in mainstream newspapers that have written about the projects in question.
 * Regarding the lead section of the Security through obscurity article: Claiming that I undid your edits is false. are your edits and  is my edit directly after yours. I did three things:
 * I removed the undue emphasis that you added with formatting. This is something we don't do here on Wikipedia. You can read more about this in our manual of style.
 * Saying that "security through obscurity is the reliance of secrecy of the design or implementation as the sole method of providing security" implies that such systems never use any other methods to provide security for the system. Security through obscurity is not always the only method that is used to provide security for a system. Therefore, I think it is better to say "security through obscurity is the reliance of secrecy of the design or implementation as a method of providing security".
 * I removed the quote that you copied from OWASP's wiki per WP:UGC. Claiming that this isn't an open Wiki that anyone can modify is false. Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Wikis and personal websites (like danielmiessler.com) are not considered to be reliable sources. Your edits will not stick if you use questionable or self-published sources.
 * If I had undone your edits, the article would look like, but now it looks like . --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC) [edited 13:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)]


 * Thanks for clarification on the WP:SPAMBAIT. I see your point. I guess you could say the entire article really is spambait. I understand about getting mainstream articles, and that was my initial goal, but that's unfortunately not always possible with WordPress. Some of the best resources are more niche. The other thing to keep in mind is that mainstream articles are not always accurate, as they tend to be several layers away from those actually involved in these areas. In research, smaller, localized, primary and secondary sources have more value that mainstream resources, so I'm not exactly sure why that would be different here. The closer you can get to those with expertise, the better. Otherwise, people might as well just use Google or their local magazine rack.


 * I'll forego any more edits on that page and leave that to someone else. Perhaps someone else knows of better resources. I wasn't making saying anything negative about you with the changes. I apologize if I misspoke. I appreciate teaching me about formatting rules. I understand now what you meant about that, and that's great.


 * Regarding your point that my edit "implies that such systems never use any other methods to provide security for the system", that's exactly what I'm saying, and the exact correction that needed to be made.


 * When you say:


 * Therefore, I think it is better to say "security through obscurity is the reliance of secrecy of the design or implementation as a method of providing security".


 * That is your opinion, but I'm sorry, you are incorrect here, and that is the exact issue I'm trying to fix with the page.


 * If a system uses other methods than obscurity, (implying stronger methods), then it is by definition not "security through obscurity" (or "security by obscurity"), it would be "obscurity as a layer of Defense in Depth". The nuances of the language in the phrase are quite important and people overlook this. Those prepositions "through" and "by" have a specific meaning. "Security through obscurity" is not referring to merely "any use of obscurity within a security mechanism", yet many spread that false definition of it, and it ends up misleading a lot of people in the security field. Because of this, many look upon those with disdain who use or even mention "obscurity" in any security related matter. Yet they are factually and statistically incorrect.


 * Obscurity is a valid layer that can enhance or strengthen other layers of security. Systems that integrate obscurity as a layer in a Defense in Depth system with other strong measures are proven to be more robust and difficult to break than those that do not. They also increase the time, resources and skill level to implement a successful attack.


 * OWASP may technically be a Wiki but it has a high editorial standard, and is highly regarded resource in security. Not quite understanding that standard since Wikipedia is a Wiki, and it is quoted all the time by other reputable sites.


 * Just to give some personal feedback: I don't know if this is possible with Wikipedia, but when editing another's edit, would it not be possible and possibly more constructive to contact them first, and have conversations like this before going back and forth on the edits? I realize I have a lot to learn about the community, and I'm willing to humbly do so, and accept your guidance. However, I am a subject matter expert in this area, with decades of experiences, and I'm trying to contribute to some positive change in this area.


 * I have to say, that it is quite discouraging to come here and try to contribute. Honestly, it doesn't seem like you all are that willing to hear other's contributions. I think that most people don't want to get involved with Wikipedia because of these type of atmosphere.


 * Perhaps I should gracefully withdraw from Wikipedia...starting to feel like I may not be as welcome as I initially thought, and may not be able to contribute here after all.


 * RSTech1 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are indeed important when doing research, but we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia does not publish original research. Wikipedia is intended to be a tertiary source of information, summarizing the information gleaned from reliable secondary sources, and in some cases from primary sources. Primary sources should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied on exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research.
 * Based on this discussion, I have now restored the "security through obscurity is the reliance on the secrecy of the design or implementation as the sole method of providing security" sentence, but I would still like to see a better source than OWASP or danielmiessler.com, just because of Wikipedia's policies regarding user-generated content and self-published sources. As a subject matter expert in the area, you probably have good insights for locating reliable sources.
 * WP:BRD is one method of reaching consensus. Please don't take it personally if others modify what you've written. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science
Thanks for your time and edits on Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science! Very much appreciated! Sorry about the mostly Dutch sources. There will be move English source of the next week or so. Personally, I attended the meeting in Amsterdam and have given feedback on the living document and not formally involved in the drafting otherwise. I'm an Open Science addict and predict this document will have a major impact. Of course, after May 27 we'll hear more about it too, I guess. For now, I added a news item in from a Dutch newspaper, but already asked around for coverage in newspapers in other countries. Also, I'm trying to keep track of coverage on Lanyrd, see http://lanyrd.com/2016/eu2016nl/coverage/ Egonw (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added an article from Science about the meeting and the Call for Action. Egonw (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

TAILS page edit adding ver 2.5
I added it because it lets people know what bugs are currently being worked on and when they can expect the fixes to be released.

Thank you for reverting my mistake. I was trying to use the new 'visual editing' feature. Then went back to code editing. I caught my problem, but you caught it 1st. :)

Hopefully you will re-add or allow me to re-add the ver 2.5 post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiterussian1974 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's WP:BALL policy states that individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable, and that dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. #4 of WP:IINFO states that Wikipedia articles should not list software versions that haven't been the subject of independent, third-party coverage. Version 2.5 is an upcoming minor release that hasn't been the subject of third-party coverage. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that it should not be listed until it is actually released, and that once it is replaced by version 2.6, it should be removed from the table if it hasn't been the subject of third-party coverage. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Internet censorship
Greetings

Thinking for a while seriously; the actual internet censorship cannot be controlled or suppressed directly just like an 'Ad hoc' is used for applying extra purposes about what the article means itself. So the first line becomes too fallacy. That's the point for changing the text that should be read like "is the inquiry of interventional control or suppression".

Anyway thanks for your work and kindness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.138.21 (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, i have seen how you won't answer my section, but i must add this point: what can't you ensure about Internet censorship will: could be called as well under control and suppression from order people? isn't right? or from offenders?. It is fallacy. Have a nice day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.138.21 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policies on original research dictate that you can't just change the definition of a term only because you think that there is something wrong with it. You must provide a reliable source that directly supports the claim that "Internet censorship is the inquiry of interventional control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet". Your IP address is from Spain, so I'm guessing that you're not a native English speaker. Perhaps what you mean to say is that the goal or purpose of Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet? "Inquiry" is far from the correct word to use in this case, because it is synonymous with "investigation". Either way, your edit is archived in the page history for now, and you are free to re-add it if you are able to include a citation. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

JA page
Hi Dodi,

Thanks for removing that text. I'm admittedly frustrated with the guy; I didn't intend to be uncivilized, but it's hard to be patient with his constant POV-pushing. QuelleChose1 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

North Central College edit
Hello Dodi 8238, when I edited North Central College and added Ann Durkin Keating as a faculty, is because she is a noteworthy person. Google her and you'll find that she edited the Encyclopedia of Chicago and was named Chicagoan of the Year in 2005 by Chicago (magazine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D131:DB30:C516:88CF:B14F:5E26 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said in, please see WP:ALUMNI. People who are added to such lists should have pre-existing articles before they are added. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Alternatively, the subject must meet at least one of the conditions listed in WP:NACADEMIC, as substantiated through reliable sources. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to share something on wikipedia
Hi Dodi, I'm new here... I just wanted to share WhatsApp Status encyclopedia on the WhatsApp page. Kindly suggest the proper way as I'm not aware about the Wikipedia rules... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faiz7869 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you asked. Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter. The external link that you would like to add to the WhatsApp article appears to be a personal website, and is therefore inappropriate. Please do not add it to the Wikipedia article about WhatsApp. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. My advice is to use an alternative outlet to share your link. Thank you. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Zeek Wikipedia Page
Hi Dodi. I've been following your edits on Wikipedia and I wanted to ask if you could assist in improving the article about Zeek an award-winning Israeli start-up. The company's coverage is far more notable than it appears in the article. Since I have COI regarding this matter I seek the help from experienced Wikipedia editors to help improve the article Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Eddard 'Ned' Stark (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The article somewhat since you asked for my assistance. I appreciate your openness regarding your conflict of interest. I have taken the liberty of adding your username to the connected contributor template at the top of the Zeek talk page. You are welcome to propose changes on the Zeek talk page (see the request edit template) or on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard; keep in mind that your proposals may or may not be acted upon. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Tense in biographies
Thanks for fixing Moxie Marlinspike. I believe present tense is not just a good idea but actually part of the MOS, at Manual of Style/Biographies. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to refer to the MOS if something similar comes up in the future. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

About the recent edit in " List of free and open-source Android applications"
hi dodi, I would not want to challange your decision. But i would surely like convey everyone that the edits i made was not a promotional content.

Open Source projects generally dont produce any profit or commertial income for the creator. And they are mostly for the benefit of the public and they can be used freely by the people without paying any money to the creator of the project. Even though the topic doesnt have a third party sources but its not a promotional content. Treeofkarma (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm guessing that you are referring to, in which I reverted the addition of an application called Nearby Shops to List of free and open-source Android applications. As you can see from my edit summary, I did not revert the addition because of WP:PROMO, but because of WP:WTAF. That list is not meant to be a directory of every free and open-source Android application in existence (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). There is a concensus among the editors of that list that we should only include applications that already have their own Wikipedia articles (WP:WTAF). If you can find significant coverage about a free and open-source Android application in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG), you are welcome to write a Wikipedia article about it and include it in the list. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Add 1 link to a protected article
Hi Dodi, Could you add bitlish link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bitcoin_companies ? https://bitlish.com/

Bitlish offers secure and convenient bitcoin exchange for registered users since 2014.

Bitlish.com - Bitcoin exchange, Bitcoin ATM, Cards. - 2014

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel Debekov (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌. Please see WP:ELLIST and WP:WTAF. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Wire_(software) details - best way to update if I'm affiliated with the company behind it?
Hi Dodi,

What's the best and most neutral way to update parts of Wire_(software)? I'm a Wiki noob but obviously keen to see the page state correct things.

Here's the list I have in mind:


 * The app allows group calling with up to five participants. > The app allows calling with up to 10 participants. Source: https://support.wire.com/hc/en-us/articles/203690582-How-do-I-start-or-end-a-group-call-
 * Wire also includes a function for ephemeral messaging in 1:1 conversations. > This functionality also works in group conversations since the day it was launched.
 * The University of Waterloo review references in the "Security" section was significantly updated in 2017-03-28 with the conclusion of "The remaining issues with Wire are relatively minor and also affect many of its competitors."
 * Business model - Wire announced a beta version of its team feature that is a paid product creating a business model for the company. Source: https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/20/wire-launches-e2e-encrypted-team-messaging-in-beta/

Siimteller (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC) [edited 09:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)]


 * Thank you for reaching out to me on my talk page with sources. I have now reviewed your edit requests and updated the article accordingly. To answer your question, please see WP:BFAQ and WP:BFAQ. They say that it is best if you avoid editing articles relating to your organization entirely, because of the conflict of interest. You can use the request edit template to request edits on the article's talk page (in this case Talk:Wire (software)). WP:PSCOI has a list of steps you can take if no one has reviewed your edit request within a week. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Signal Software
I suggest you undo your changes. I disagree that my contribution violates the policies that you suggest and was perfectly factual. It may however be better suited to the Signal protocol article.

Your changes are actually completely incorrect as stated in my undo comment and dangerously misleading which is far worse than a disputed to be opinionated version and a mis-service to wikipedia users. Additionally you appear to have a bias in trying to dismiss the FACT that Signal is insecure by default without sufficient warnings upon INSTALLATION. I say you appear to have a bias because you mention it is a student project. Where is the evidence for this that you require from me for far less questionable content. Note that an assistant professor is one of those that you asked me to name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.11.172 (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For reference, here are the changes that I believe you are referring to:, and . As I said in my first edit summary, I moved a subsection and renamed the subheading as per WP:CRIT, removed unsupported claims, puffery and weasel wording as per WP:VER, WP:PEA and WP:WEASEL, and requested reliable sources.
 * 1. WP:CRIT states that, in most cases, separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. So far you have only been able to produce one source saying that an unrelated product (WhatsApp) which uses the Signal Protocol should inform users that they should verify keys before initiating new sessions. The creation of a separate "criticism" section seems undue here.
 * 2. "... concerns have been raised widely in cryptography circle comments over trust on first use and key changes." Saying "widely in cryptography circle comments" is a perfect example of weasel wording, and the cited blog post does not support the claim.
 * 3. "Trust on first use forms part of the design and so has been largely excluded from other formal security analyses." This is a pretty broad claim, and it is not entirely supported by the paper that was cited. I think this counts as original research.
 * 4. "Calvin Li, Daniel Sanchez and Sean Hua from MIT ..." As none of these people are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article (see WP:GNG and WP:NPROF), I see no reason to include any of their names directly in the article's text (see WP:BLPNAME).
 * 5. "... notably raised concerns ..." Saying "notably" here is a perfect example of puffery.
 * 6. "... neither Whatsapp nor the Signal App have addressed this concern raised by MIT in 2016." The concern was not raised "by MIT", but by some participants in a first-year graduate student course:
 * https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-857-network-and-computer-security-spring-2014/
 * https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.857/2016/projects
 * Please keep in mind that exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 1. It uses the same protocol and so equally applies. You do not seem to understand the basics. I work in this field.
 * 2. The comments do and I live in those circles!
 * 3. Not entirely supported? - "Out-of-band key verification.
 * To reduce the trust requirements on the prekey server, Signal supports a fingerprint
 * mechanism for verifying public keys through an out-of-band channel. We simply assume that long-term and
 * medium-term public key distribution is honest, and do not analyse the out-of-band verification channel."
 * It may be original research but I can tell you that no other papers analyse this. In that case you should have consulted and suggested an edit and not misrepresented facts.
 * 4. If that was the case almost nothing would be included in wikipedia you are violating the policy of a neutral point of view!
 * 6. Again violating the policy of a neutral point of view.
 * http://people.csail.mit.edu/sanchez/
 * "Before joining MIT in September 2012, I earned a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University, where I worked with Professor Christos Kozyrakis. I have also received an M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford (2009) and a B.S. in Telecommunications Engineering from the Technical University of Madrid, UPM (2007)."
 * I expect he is far more qualified than you and yet you have cited original content of users can compare key fingerprints, we can also check the fingerprints of https but do not need to whereas you must with signal to prevent MITM. You also mis cited the MIT members in tying it to re-installation. That is completely incorrect as I have told you already.
 * I request that you undo your changes and discuss your objections to the original text as per the wikipedia code of practice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.11.172 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018‎ (UTC) [edited by Dodi 8238 to be consistent with WP:THREAD]
 * I expect he is far more qualified than you and yet you have cited original content of users can compare key fingerprints, we can also check the fingerprints of https but do not need to whereas you must with signal to prevent MITM. You also mis cited the MIT members in tying it to re-installation. That is completely incorrect as I have told you already.
 * I request that you undo your changes and discuss your objections to the original text as per the wikipedia code of practice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.11.172 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018‎ (UTC) [edited by Dodi 8238 to be consistent with WP:THREAD]
 * I request that you undo your changes and discuss your objections to the original text as per the wikipedia code of practice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.11.172 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018‎ (UTC) [edited by Dodi 8238 to be consistent with WP:THREAD]
 * I request that you undo your changes and discuss your objections to the original text as per the wikipedia code of practice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.11.172 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2018‎ (UTC) [edited by Dodi 8238 to be consistent with WP:THREAD]


 * Personal attacks are counterproductive. Let's focus on improving the article:
 * 1. We can't always assume that criticism against one applies equally to the other, even if they use the same encryption protocol. For instance, Signal will always notify users about Safety Number changes while WhatsApp does not notify users by default:
 * https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007060632
 * https://faq.whatsapp.com/en/general/28030014/
 * 2. Are you referring to information in the blog post's comment section? Wikipedia does not consider user generated content (such as blog post comments, internet forum comments, etc.) as reliable sources of information (unless the author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications, see WP:RSSELF).
 * 3. The part that you quoted does not directly support the claim that other formal security analyses have not taken Signal's use of TOFU into account. At best, it can be used to support the claim that this one particular analysis by Cohn-Gordon et al. assumed long-term and medium-term public key distribution was honest and did not analyse the out-of-band verification channel. If you would like other examples of analyses that have taken Signal's use of TOFU into account, I suggest that you start by reading the paper by Schröder et al.:
 * "Our threat model accounts for the compromise of SIGNAL’s central services. This compromise can be the result of targeted attacks on  SIGNAL’s  service  infrastructure  or  assistance  of SIGNAL’s  team  to  a  subpoena  request.  The  compromise  of SIGNAL’s key server results in two different possible attacks:
 * 1. Attacks on the first session setup do not result in direct user feedback. This attack can only be detected by manually verifying e.g. over  the  phone  or  face-to-face  via  scanning the  QR  codes.  Consider  Bob  wants  to  initialize  a  secure session  with  Alice,  and  Bob  receives  the  attacker’s  Identity Key  (Mallory’s  Identity  Key)  instead  of  Alice’s  Identity  Key which is then stored by  SIGNAL as Alice’s identity.
 * 2. Attacks on established sessions where Bob has previously established a secure session with Alice and stored Alice’s correct Identity  Key.  An  attacker  (Mallory)  could  force  both parties  to  re-negotiate  a  new  communication  session.  In  this scenario the compromised SIGNAL server would respond with the attacker’s Pre Key Bundle including the Signed Pre Key of the attacker, and thus establishes a man-in-the-middle attack.
 * SIGNAL accounts for  both  of  the  attack  scenarios  of  our threat  model.  First,  SIGNAL provides  a  feature  to  manually verify established Identity Keys, outlined in Figure 2. Second, SIGNAL warns  users  when  it  detects  that  long-term  keys  of users change, see Figure 3. In our paper we study exactly how usable and effective these two countermeasures of SIGNAL are."
 * I don't see how removing an unverifiable sentence from an article can count as "misrepresented facts".
 * 4. Again, the only reason I don't think it is necessary to list their names is that none of them are notable. If you honestly think that it would improve the article's neutrality, we can add that it was "an MIT graduate student project by Calvin Li, assistant professor Daniel Sanchez and Sean Hua."
 * 6. So just to be clear, you believe that because Sanches was working as an assistant professor at MIT while he took the course, he and the other term project participants were speaking on behalf of MIT?
 * I wrote that "in 2016, an MIT student project raised concerns about the lack of warnings to users about initial key verification in WhatsApp, saying that an external change like app uninstallation/reinstallation or a device change could leave the system vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and suggested that WhatsApp "add a verification step before session creation to confirm that the connection is authentic." This was based on what the term project participants wrote in their conclusion (emphasis added):
 * "However, one potential point of concern is WhatsApp’s session establishment. After a session is first initialized between two users, the same session is used for all subsequent interactions between the two, barring an external change like app uninstallation/reinstallation or a device change. This leaves the system vulnerable to Man In The Middle attacks, which are extremely dangerous. WhatsApp does offer a Key Verification feature to make sure that the person on the other end of the chat is who you think he/she is, but because this is not mandatory, users will be put at risk if they simply reply on the Trust On First Use principle that is inherent in session establishment. We propose to simply add a verification step before session creation to confirm that the connection is authentic."
 * Am I interpreting this incorrectly, or could the reason you think that my summary is incorrect be because you want to use the source to synthesize something that is not explicitly stated in any of the sources you have cited so far?
 * "...we can also check the fingerprints of https but do not need to whereas you must with signal to prevent MITM." Sorry, but I do not see why you think these two cases are so different. With HTTPS, users need to trust the certificate authority system but can verify fingerprints with a web server's owner if they want to. With Signal, users need to trust Signal's key server but can verify fingerprints with each other if they want to.
 * Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. Thanks! --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 4. Again, the only reason I don't think it is necessary to list their names is that none of them are notable. If you honestly think that it would improve the article's neutrality, we can add that it was "an MIT graduate student project by Calvin Li, assistant professor Daniel Sanchez and Sean Hua."
 * 6. So just to be clear, you believe that because Sanches was working as an assistant professor at MIT while he took the course, he and the other term project participants were speaking on behalf of MIT?
 * I wrote that "in 2016, an MIT student project raised concerns about the lack of warnings to users about initial key verification in WhatsApp, saying that an external change like app uninstallation/reinstallation or a device change could leave the system vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and suggested that WhatsApp "add a verification step before session creation to confirm that the connection is authentic." This was based on what the term project participants wrote in their conclusion (emphasis added):
 * "However, one potential point of concern is WhatsApp’s session establishment. After a session is first initialized between two users, the same session is used for all subsequent interactions between the two, barring an external change like app uninstallation/reinstallation or a device change. This leaves the system vulnerable to Man In The Middle attacks, which are extremely dangerous. WhatsApp does offer a Key Verification feature to make sure that the person on the other end of the chat is who you think he/she is, but because this is not mandatory, users will be put at risk if they simply reply on the Trust On First Use principle that is inherent in session establishment. We propose to simply add a verification step before session creation to confirm that the connection is authentic."
 * Am I interpreting this incorrectly, or could the reason you think that my summary is incorrect be because you want to use the source to synthesize something that is not explicitly stated in any of the sources you have cited so far?
 * "...we can also check the fingerprints of https but do not need to whereas you must with signal to prevent MITM." Sorry, but I do not see why you think these two cases are so different. With HTTPS, users need to trust the certificate authority system but can verify fingerprints with a web server's owner if they want to. With Signal, users need to trust Signal's key server but can verify fingerprints with each other if they want to.
 * Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. Thanks! --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "However, one potential point of concern is WhatsApp’s session establishment. After a session is first initialized between two users, the same session is used for all subsequent interactions between the two, barring an external change like app uninstallation/reinstallation or a device change. This leaves the system vulnerable to Man In The Middle attacks, which are extremely dangerous. WhatsApp does offer a Key Verification feature to make sure that the person on the other end of the chat is who you think he/she is, but because this is not mandatory, users will be put at risk if they simply reply on the Trust On First Use principle that is inherent in session establishment. We propose to simply add a verification step before session creation to confirm that the connection is authentic."
 * Am I interpreting this incorrectly, or could the reason you think that my summary is incorrect be because you want to use the source to synthesize something that is not explicitly stated in any of the sources you have cited so far?
 * "...we can also check the fingerprints of https but do not need to whereas you must with signal to prevent MITM." Sorry, but I do not see why you think these two cases are so different. With HTTPS, users need to trust the certificate authority system but can verify fingerprints with a web server's owner if they want to. With Signal, users need to trust Signal's key server but can verify fingerprints with each other if they want to.
 * Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. Thanks! --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "...we can also check the fingerprints of https but do not need to whereas you must with signal to prevent MITM." Sorry, but I do not see why you think these two cases are so different. With HTTPS, users need to trust the certificate authority system but can verify fingerprints with a web server's owner if they want to. With Signal, users need to trust Signal's key server but can verify fingerprints with each other if they want to.
 * Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. Thanks! --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. Thanks! --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)