User talk:Intgr/Archive 3

Cool'n'quiet
Sorry about it, but it's just a energywaste if nobody knows how to enable c'n'q

1. Install AMD Driver 2. Set your power management scheme to Minimal Energy Consumption

Suburban Wasp Article
Thank you for marking the errors in my article. The word in question is a slang word does that mean I need to make a stub for the page?

I am looking into the problem as best I can at the moment and have added a hangon to the article. If I cannot fix the article in a week (hopefully that time is allowed) then I will surrender it to deletion.

This is my first article, I am sorry for my lack of expertise with the Wikipedia process.

ZackofSpades 02:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded on the article's talk page. PS: add new comments to the bottom of talk pages. -- intgr 06:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Coda size limits
Concerning facts without attribution (see Coda (file system) and volume size limits), I'd rather like people just to add "citation needed" tags (which are constructive) instead of simply reverting (which is kind of rude). BTW in this particular case, an (explained) statement about Coda's maximum volume size was present in older versions of the article but was removed without notice by someone doing refactoring. I find this "style before facts" tendency a bit odd (not that it matters a lot though). -- NotInventedHere 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I reverted it because Coda is a network file system &mdash; I wouldn't expect it to have any size limits like normal file systems do, and as I couldn't go and verify it due to the lack of a source, I reverted it. Rude or not, I found it very dubious. -- intgr 16:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Optical Carrier
Hi Intgr, just thought I'd stop by and just let you know, a few days back I filed a note on WP:COI/N regarding the Optical Carrier article, I think this is why Cyberdyneinc had the message on their talk page, I actually posted a message advising of the post, but it was later blanked out without response (see ), just thought I'd stop by and let you know, and wondering if you might want to post your own 2cents on the COI in question. --NigelJ talk SIMPLE 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you are sadly Misguided in your appraisal of this R&D! I am unaware of having to meet a schedule of approval for posting of Citations or edits to the articles as the entire concept behind WIKI is contribution of Knowlege.. I implore you to please add postive to the effort or at the very least stop th harrasement of a new user posting relevant contributions. I assure you with over a billion dollars in private funding and 23 years worth of work The contribution to the OPTICAL CARRIER AS STATED AS 2496 with speeds of 124.6 129.3 Gbps is a relevent item for inclusion in this section Please Sir stop making our process of posting articles citations difficult Cyberdyneinc 05:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The schedule of adding citations is WITH the added information. As long as the information doesn't have a citation, it is unsourced, and thus subject to removal. I am not harrassing you by removing unsourced information. Refer to Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
 * I have also responded to your latest comment on Talk:Optical Carrier. Also note that you CANNOT remove other peoples' comments as you did here! Your negligence of cooperation is a clear indication that you are not here to improve Wikipedia. -- intgr 06:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

TAKE NOTICE SIR YOU HAVE BEEN SUCESSFUL IN YOUR ABILITY TO HINDER SHARING OF INFORMATION AND GAIN ATTENTION FOR IT !!

SPECIAL NOTICE 11-APRIL-2007

AS MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO ARRANGE AND ADD OUR RESEARCH TO WIKIPEDIA BASED ON THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTION OUR WORK HAS HAD AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE ON TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT THESE EFFORTS HAVE BECOME  DIFFICULT  AND  IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO ACTIONS OF  UNETHICAL BIASED ACTIONS OF INDEPENDNANT  EXTERNAL CONTENT EDITORS FOR WIKIPEDIA. IE USER:intgr IE User:NijelJ

AS A RESULT OF ACTIONS WE WILL HAVE TO DEPLOY ALL OF THE RESEARCH VIA OUR OWN INTERNAL WIKI :THIS PROCESS WILL TAKE TIME TO COMPLETE:  WE APOLOGIZE FOR ANY DELAY IN RECIEVING ACCESS TO OUR  RESEARCH PAPERS. (this notice will run via all of our domains internal and external until such time as as we complete our deployment) Cyberdyneinc 14:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) citation


 * Oh, that is comforting to hear. You finally realized that you're not supposed to publish original research on Wikipedia? -- intgr 14:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Agnix
Deletion is fine with me. I didn't create the article, I don't mind, I just stumbled upon it when looking through some categories, and cleaned it up some and linked some words. -- Frap 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. I just contacted you since I couldn't find any other logged-on users who had made more than a single edit. -- intgr 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Alpha Five
I just started on the article today and you want to play tit for tat on notability? Give me a chance to build the article and post my references. Alpha Five has been around longer then Filemaker Pro and Access, and they've sold over 1 million copies. Over the years it was more popular then the now dead Paradox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeetMoss (talk • contribs).


 * Sorry; fair enough &mdash; but in the future, you probably want to establish notability before adding links to prevalent templates, such as Template:Databases. -- intgr 04:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

dirty bird
look, i just created the dirty bird page, give me some time to finish it ok.--Notenderwiggin 05:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then place a on it and establish notability. -- intgr 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I placed a hangon (sorry, I have never created a page before and usually just add to pages that have already been created) I have references to Now magazine and the tropper website, is that sufficient notablity?  I know they have been interviewed in Absolute Underground, but I dont have the print references handy.  Because they are a punk band even though they are well-established there isn't a lot of print media referencs to them.--Notenderwiggin 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Err, none of the links would appear to be a "non-trivial published work" &mdash; these are normally reliable, secondary sources. Did you read the general notability guideline as well as notability of music?
 * If there aren't enough secondary sources for the article then they are simply not content for Wikipedia &mdash; encyclopedia articles should be primarily based on secondary sources. You can read the attribution policy for more details. -- intgr 06:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I did read your links, the probelm is that a lot of the secondary references are print punk magazines which I don't have handy now. If you look at the other punk bands in canada music, most of them have way worse references, this page is already above the standard of other punk bands for refereces. Give me a week or so to get better ones.--Notenderwiggin 06:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, the standard is still the notability guideline, although it's not enforced uniformly (WP:ININ), newer articles are generally subject to more scrutinity. Print magazines are fine for citing; we can let the article stay with notability meanwhile. Note that I already removed the speedy deletion template &mdash; this one is merely a notice for editors. Such notices do not require the  template, so you should remove the latter. -- intgr 06:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, thanks, I'll try to get something better. Now magazine, by the way, is a real print magazine readily availible in Toronto. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notenderwiggin (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC).


 * If you want to cite a magazine that doesn't have copies of articles on the Internet then you shouldn't add a link at all &mdash; the current link is very confusing, hence why I didn't consider it a source. And you should use proper citation style. -- intgr 06:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The new yorker had a passing mention of dirty bird in October 2006. That is the best you will EVER FIND for a punk band.  Now maganize is the link that I already have there, I'm sayiing it's not just on the internet.  Sorry I'm not up with all the best wikipedia styles, that's not grounds for rmoval on notability. Anwyay, you should remove the notice, you can't dispute the New Yorker is a real print source. I can't get access to the actual article, although I read it when it came out, but google "canada's drunkest hardcore band" and it will come up --Notenderwiggin 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Miriam Young/Listcruft
Well, you're fast. According to the history page for Miriam Young, you made your deletion to the article three seconds after it was posted.

The guidelines for listcruft would appear to allow a list of an author's works within an article about that author. That's not the same as creating a standalone list article titled "Works by Miriam Young," which would clearly be listcruft. Nevertheless, I accept that the list is rather long in relation to the amount of information currently in the article, so I have moved the bibliography to the talk page for now.--emw 16:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, that's what I thought. -- intgr 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

order of stubs?
Hey, Intgr! I saw you left an edit comment that said "(navboxes go below stub tags (... i think))". Is that true? I do the opposite, but I'm not sure it's right, either. Have you read something someplace that gives a guideline? Where was it? -- Mikeblas 19:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you are correct; WP:STUB states "After writing a short article, or finding one not marked as a stub, you should insert a stub template. By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last."; however, I find that the huge database navigation box totally obscures the small stub notice if the navbox is placed on top of it, so I am unsure about this. -- intgr 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking established practice
Concerning your recent rv: linking like this is an established practice contribution to the Seagull Framework article. Where can find more information about that practice ? Is it a Wikipedia best practice ? I mean documented in the help.

Also note that you cancelled two of my contributions and one was not supposed to be, first one. --Goa103 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think these things are explicitly stated in a guideline somewhere, but most other articles like this generally have the domain name in the infobox "website" entry, and also explicitly have another link to the same URL in the "external links" section. So yes, I intended to revert both of your edits. My common sense tells me that:
 * re-stating "Seagull Framework" in the infobox link field is redundant, as the infobox already contains the name of the framework at the top;
 * "Seagull PHP Framework" isn't the web site, www.seagullproject.org is;
 * the article should stand on its own, even without the infobox &mdash; infoboxes are just for summarizing quick and obvious facts stated in the article.


 * In any case, there's the Manual of Style, although I don't think it addresses cases as specifically as this. -- intgr 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind answer. In fact I'm more familiar with best practices of the French Wikipedia (Wikipédia). I checked some articles and I have to agree that most of them use a short URL for the website title. However it's not because most editors do something that they're right. I think all habits should be documented to avoid contributions, so bad habits, that lower the overall quality of the encyclopedia. For example I think some contributors only copy and paste the website URL and use it as a title, it's far must easier than checking the website real title. Here are my comments to your common sense arguments :
 * I agree that redundant content should be avoided at all cost. It just makes updating articles a nightmare. However it seems we have a whole different idea of what define a website. For me a website is defined by a URL and a title. I base my opinion on Tim Berners-Lee numerous articles. He states that a website is a Web resource. A Web resource is accessible to a certain URL (URI) and named by a title.
 * I disagree www.seagullproject.org doesn't mean anything. It's not the website title nor its URL. To reference the Seagull official website you use the following external link : Seagull PHP Framework. Its real title is Seagull PHP Framework :: Home but the prefix is only used as a helper to the user. In fact it's the Web homepage of the website we reference. A Web page is defined by its URL, http://www.seagullproject.org, and its title, Seagull PHP Framework. How would you reference Wikipedia on an other website ? Using en.wikipedia.org ? No I suppose you would just use Wikipedia like everyone. The URL, specially a shortened one, is not the website and shouldn't be used to represent its title. However I have to agree that some websites prefix their titles with the gTLD (.com, .fr...) to avoid conflicts and help users to reference them. For example French Amazon official website is Amazon.fr. Generally these commercial websites even specify that they should only be adressed as Amazon.fr or Amazon.com. Other names are just forbidden to respect their trademarks.
 * Why do you separate the infobox from the article ? The infobox is part of the article. Its website entry makes visiting official websites far much smoother and both referencing them in the infobox and in the External links section just clutter the article with redundant content. Moreover your practice has two ways of referencing a website. In the infobox you referenced it as www.seagullproject.org and as Official website of Seagull PHP Framework in the External links. I don't really understand that approach.


 * Last but not least I plan to read the Manual of Style (links) article to learn more about the best practices to better write links. After all it's not because I back up my arguments with Tim Berners-Lee statements and my little Wikipédia experience that I'm right. Merry Easter by the way. --Goa103 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolonkins
You prodded gas tube rocket hypersonic launcher then apparently thought better of it and created redirects. If you really think it is wiki-worthy, you may comment at the AfD. -- RHaworth 11:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, because the article was completely rewritten after it was de-prodded. -- intgr 12:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled myself about this edit. It was my intention to add the AfD tag and nothing else. I must have edited an old version by mistake. Sorry. -- RHaworth 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Megabit
Actually, SNES cartridge capacities are measured in mebibits, you are right, but the symbol of mebibit is Mibit, not Mbit like it's written in Megabit. Sarenne 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I missed that. -- intgr 22:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved this discussion to Talk:Megabit. -- intgr 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

AWB
Hi. Sorry about that. I was just sampling AWB out and trying a stress test on (which required it to make as many edits as it could). With that view, I forgot to pay attention to the usage guides and the effect it might have had on others. My apologies. Anyways, thanks for the heads up. Cya around. :) --  soum  (0_o) 07:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cyberdyneinc
Hello there. Can you please take a look at the mentioned user as he keeps vandalising and remove warnings. Thanks matt-(my page-leave me a message) 15:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this user all along; looks like he's finally given up on Wikipedia for promotion. -- intgr 16:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Strängnäs
The reason is not a deletion, just a move. I have divided Strängnäs (city) and Strängnäs Municipality into two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrór (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, fair enough. But please use edit summaries from now on. :)
 * P.S. sign your comments with four tildes, and add new entries to the bottom of talk pages. For more information, see talk page guidelines. -- intgr 23:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I know all this, don't worry. I was just in a hurry. / Thrór 23:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. :) -- intgr 23:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cites for the Itanium sales chart.
Hi!. Please look at the "timeline" section of the new version of Itanium article. Most of the data points are found in one chart that is cited several times in the timeline. The "actuals" and the latest forecasts are found in other cites there. I will reference teh cites from the lable on the image not that you ask. -Arch dude 23:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. -- intgr 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also added the cites to the page at Wikipedia commons. I should probably add the data in tabular form also. My translation from the original chart is accurate to at most 2 digits, but the trend is so glaring that higher precision is irrelevant. If you have time to review, comment, and/or correct the article. please do so. Thanks. -Arch dude 00:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Inhabited (group)
Hey there -- sorry about removing the notability-music tag from the Inhabited article. I went ahead and added more content (since your edit) to the article and I realize the group is probably on the very edge of notability, but since it'd been tagged for over two months I thought I'd try and either tip the scales one way or the other. I'm not sure if there's enough content for non-notability still, but I know it's not my call to make. Thanks! Utopianheaven 21:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Notability does not depend on the content of the article, but rather, is based on the subject of the article. Notability for the purposes of Wikipedia is defined by the availability of reliable, independent sources on the subject. For more information, please see the general notability guideline and the music-specific guideline. If you can demonstrate notability by citing some sources, or if there is evidence that it qualifies through an alternate criterion, then the tag may be removed.
 * Happy editing! :) -- intgr 21:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template for Homophobic NPA
Hello Intgr. Per our discussion on IRC 21st April, about a seperate template for Homophobic breach of NPA, I have done as you suggested and proposed the new Template in the talk area of WP:UW. As you were talking with me about it, I would appreciate your input on the discussion and your views concerning the wording of the proposed template. BTW, just in case you hadn't guessed, I am drivamgr2006. Regards and Thank you. Thor Malmjursson 23:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Intgr, would you be interested in becoming an administrator on Wikipedia? —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-23 10:31Z


 * I am not thrilled by the thought of accepting extra responsibilities, so not quite sure. -- intgr 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. If you ever change your mind, let me know. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-24 10:05Z

Roundup (issue tracker) an advertisement?!
I'd like to know what made you think of the Roundup (issue tracker) page as an advertisement. I would have considered it to be good style to put a note concerning your reasons at the discussion page. --TobiasHerp 11:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded on the talk page of the article. -- intgr 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I did as well. And I found the following on NPOV dispute: "Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page (...) Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." --Tobias 12:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PHPSurveyor
Let me know if the updated PHPSurveyor article now meets your approval for notability. FYI, I have read the notability guideline before, but the article was new and marked as a stub. There are hundreds of other similar software articles here that are much less notable and yet have no such tag. In any case, I believe I have provided sufficient secondary sources to establish notability for this article now.

BTW, regarding your removal of the "Multilingual" link and edit comment "(no external links within article text, except for sources, please)", I took this syntax directly from the Mozilla Thunderbird article. That link was added in rev. 89624660, back on November 23, 2006, and nobody has disputed it so far. Should it be removed from there too? -- Alan 22:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I have requested removal of the notability template on the PHPSurveyor talk page. Please respond.  -- Alan 04:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On Karrigell
Left you a comment on Talk:Karrigell. Restored the page again. Sigh. Christopher Mahan 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Read your comments at Talk:Karrigell. Thanks. Christopher Mahan 09:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Of course I proofread my comments before posting. -- intgr 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Colour Gel
Hi there. I've reinstated some of the info about Lee Filters, only without the hyperbole that someone put in. They're perfectly notable and need to be in that article - although I agree the original draft was an advert, the new version isn't. Thanks. Bryson430 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, thanks for letting me know. -- intgr 15:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RUF CTR
I don't understand why you reverted my edits to the page on the RUF CTR. I didn't change any facts or anything that shopuld require a source, I simply made the page cleaner and more like the layout suggested by the format guidelines. I'd like to revert it back, but I don't want to get flagged as a vandal. Please get back to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.173.86 (talk • contribs)


 * There are quite a few POV and unsourced claims on the article, which I noticed in your revision and thought you had added them. I did not realize that you were simply rearranging the content. Accept my apologies, I have reverted back to your version. And thanks for contributing. :) -- intgr 23:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reversion, I'm not upset, I was simply unsure of why the content was reverted. --71.129.173.86 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dining Cryptographers edits
Hi,

You keep reverting the page to the last edits before my changes.

I have permissions to all the images in the page. I just don't understand which tags do I need to add and how. I added in the edit notes everywhere I could that I have the permissions.

We learned about this protocol in the class and had an assignment to edit the page and make it much more accurate than before. That's what we did. The images we inserted are taken from our professors lectures and from Chaum's page. In his page it is written that it's o.k. to use the pictures.

PLEASE don't revert the page anymore.

Thanks, Hagit & Michal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hagitwiki (talk • contribs) 08:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Do you think I am doing this for fun?
 * I have repeatedly told you in my comments (here, here, here) and edit summaries that you cannot add content to Wikipedia that you simply have exclusive "permissions" to use. I have repeatedly referred you to Copyrights. You can even see the this below every edit box: "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License." &mdash; since you do not own the copyright, you cannot legally relicense someone else's text.
 * All text on Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. All images on Wikipedia must be licensed under a free license that, among other things, permits commercial reproduction.
 * -- intgr 15:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Retroshare does not use Turtle F2F ?
Hi ! You removed links to Retroshare because you think it is not anonymous but they claim they use Turtle F2F as an anonymous layer. Do you have any reason to suspect that this claim is not true ? Here is the link to their claims: http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/en_turtle_hopping.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Touisiau (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


 * As far as I can tell, friends within the network can easily tell who is who &mdash; the fact that an outsider cannot is merely "confidentiality" or "privacy", but not "anonymity". Even the Retroshare FAQ states "Quick Answer: This Chat Messenger is private and secure, but it is not anonymous, as you see all the files of your trusted friends - and so they do."
 * These "friend-to-friend" networks have been classically called darknets, although the related Wikipedia articles contradict each other whether they are "anonymous networks" or not.
 * Maybe you should read the peer-reviewed articles given at the end of the Friend-to-friend. All F2F networks provide anonymous forwarding so that people who are not "friends" can communicate indirectly and anonymously. F2F prevents a random attacker from overloading the network to slow it down or to discover the real identities of all the members that are not his own friends. Touisiau 08:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The anonymous P2P Wikipedia article defines it as "An anonymous P2P computer network is a particular type of peer-to-peer network in which the users and their nodes are pseudonymous by default."; people in darknets participate with their real (non-pseudonymous) identities as far as their trusted peers are concerned.
 * I think the F2F article got it right when it says that F2F are darknets (they are not opened to everyone), but not all darknets are F2F (see the end of section "What F2F is not" ). Touisiau 08:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But this is not the only reason why I removed the entry; various people have repeatedly attempted to advertise Retroshare on Wikipedia articles where it has very little relevance, including the person who added the link there. I am tempted to nominate the article for deletion, since it also does also not satisfy the notability guideline, and anonymous editors have even attempted to remove that notice from the article. -- intgr 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't find the Retroshare article. Touisiau 08:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, i just found it: Retroshare_Instant_Messenger Touisiau 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just wrote in the discussion why I found in their FAQ that Retroshare is not a F2F. Touisiau 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoper Notability
Hi Intgr! I was just over on the Yoper article and noticed that the "notability" template had been applied to the page. I checked the history to find out who added the tag, and your name came up. I was hoping you could explain your reasoning behind adding the tag? Yoper is not among the most popular Linux distributions, but it does have a following. A quick Google search shows that that the usual Linux press suspects have reported on it, which would seem to strengthen its position of notability. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you could shed some light on your concerns? Thanks! Jbanes 18:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it appears that there are enough reviews of the distro for notability; I have removed the notability tag (and replaced it with one requesting references).
 * I originally added it since the only reference satisfying the notability criterion (see WP:N) I could find was the OSNews review, and because the article was (and still is) in a bad state. If you could improve it, that would be great. -- intgr #%@! 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can't do something with the article when I get the chance. Thanks for taking another look at that! --Jbanes 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for recapitalising the Internet :-)
I took my decapitalisation drive a step too far, thank you for correcting my mistake! Phaunt 19:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries, thanks for contributing. ;) -- intgr #%@! 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Hey Intgr! Sure if you want to adpot me, that'd be great. Leigao84 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, sure. :) So if you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to ask. -- intgr #%@! 06:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Null route
Thanks for improving the null route article. You seem knowledgeable, if you have further information on the null route routing flag, then please add. -- Frap 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. -- intgr #%@! 22:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted too much
I must have missed the things you've changed there for other reasons. Thanks for not abusing me too much for it. I'm not a wiki expert. I'm also not going to edit VEST page anymore at all. In fact, if I had read the WP:COI page before, I wouldn't have created it in the first place, even if Synaptic insisted. If they attack me again, I'll just complain to the administrators. The whole argument with them on Talk:VEST looks to me like one big WP:COI violation. I'd be glad if someone removed it altogether. They shouldn't even be allowed to edit the VEST page, just like me. Ruptor 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: If I capitalise the first 't' in that 'thanks' above, is that going to be in violation of some WP policy? That uncapitalised title looks annoying... like seeking attention by causing trouble. Ruptor 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "The whole argument with them on Talk:VEST looks to me like one big WP:COI violation."
 * Well, COI normally applies to article pages, not discussion pages.


 * "If they attack me again, I'll just complain to the administrators."
 * Resolving disputes is probably what you are looking for.


 * "If I capitalise the first 't' in that 'thanks' above, is that going to be in violation of some WP policy"
 * Hehe; well, WP:TALK discourages changing/refactoring someone else's comments and there is no point in of doing so, but no reasonable person would probably complain about it. In the worst case, you would end up getting a uw-tpv1 on your talk page. -- intgr #%@! 22:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PrivacyView
You marked a page that I did as an advert. Yesterday I modified the webpage to make it less advertising. When you get a chance, could you look at it and see if you think it has improved? Thanks StayMay 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it certainly has improved a lot. I am unconvinced that the "Tampa Bay" criteria is relevant to this article, but other than that, I found no problems with the article. -- intgr #%@! 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

StarLink-IRC
Why did you add the notability flag? YOU are the person who added the article to Wikipedia in the first place and now you want it deleted? I don't understand why this article was flagged for this. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rewand (talk • contribs)


 * I don't want it deleted, but the article does not establish notability as it is, and its notability appears dubious. I created the article more than a year ago when I was new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with the policies and guidelines. -- intgr #%@! 21:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lotus Cars
Thank you for fixing my atrociously sloppy merge. I think I need some coffee. --NMChico24 01:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Hi, Intgr. I respectfully disagree with your replacement of the tag of the Ansip article, but I'll not revert right now; I'd rather discuss it. As a starting point for our discussion, might I ask you to read tags? It's just one editor's opinion, but it's been catching on with many of us, and has even led to the development of the new less visible sp tag. I do realize that the article on Ansip is not likely to be perfect, but even many articles in Wikipedia with many citations are also imperfect. Well, anyway, I'd just ask that you read the essay on tags and then get back with me. I'll keep an eye on your talk page. Cheers. Unschool 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I skimmed through it, yeah, and it says nothing absolutely about tags that warn about the (un)reliability of content. I can very much understand the arguments for hiding protection and "current" tags, but one such box warning about the unreliability of the content is justified as far as I can tell, especially on BLP articles which must be dealt with extra care. -- -- intgr #%@! 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're correct to draw that distinction, but that's a reason why I do not propose removing the tag altogether, but dropping it to the bottom. Consider the weakness of our system of documentation:
 * Many articles include citations on some, but not all material. In fact, if we're honest, we'll recognize that even most articles with citations fit into this category.  Citations are often expected only on material that is challenged or controversial.
 * The reliability of information within an article is not assured by the existence of citations. People often add cites that only marginally address the topic they ostensibly support, or sometimes, not at all.
 * Some articles with zero citations are more accurate than some articles with a dozen or more citations.
 * And we still are faced with the universal issue of aesthetics. When we add a tag to the very top of the article, we are sending a message to the casual visitor:  Wikipedia is an amateurish and unreliable source of information.  Can you imagine Britannica having a header at the top of an article saying:  We intend to improve this article as soon as possible; for the time being please understand that the article is imperfect.  Of course not.  Now your point on BLP articles is relevant, but we cover ourselves just fine by placing the tag at the bottom.  And it simply looks better.  The reason that the small sp tag, as seen on most sp articles today (see Barack Obama) has become so dominant, is because the big tags make us look like a joke.  Now a small icon dealing with the need for references like that found on sp articles will not meet your concerns about misleading readers, but placing the tag at the bottom will.  Look, in almost any document written today, the writer includes caveats.  But those caveats are not placed at the top of the document, they are usually in small print at the bottom of the document.  I'm not asking for small print here, I'm asking that we give some consideration to the aesthetic appearance of the project. Unschool 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am not going to argue over this here. If you are going to advocate a change in Wikipedia's processes, please discuss it in a public discussion forum rather than my talk page, and come back once you have a consensus and a guideline. -- intgr #%@! 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Very sorry, I didn't realize I was arguing. I thought I was discussing.  Please pardon my aggression.  Unschool 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That wasn't what I attempted to convey, and I didn't mean to be rude. Just that this has been the standard practise for a while and I think that a larger consensus is needed to change it, than an agreement between two editors. -- intgr #%@! 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kadmelia changes
Thanks for editing the Kadmelia page. I made the "see also" section identical to the following pages, Distributed hash table, Pastry (DHT), Tapestry (DHT), and Chord project. Should all of these pages be updated as well? Bpringlemeir 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I think so. Since there is no context in the "See also" section, it is not clear where links like "Pastry", "Tapestry" or "Chord" would lead; someone not familiar with those might think it's a joke. I think the disambiguation suffixes do a good job at clearing up the ambiguity. (PS: it's spelled "Kad em lia") -- intgr #%@! 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bluetooth stack
Thanks for helping on the Bluetooth stack page. I tried cleaning up the page a bit but I wasn't sure whether the "download IVT here" section was an advert or not because of the phrasing that was used. Sometimes having a second person come in and fix things really helps. Thanks. Lathe26 15:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Thanks for taking that advert edit and turning it into something useful. :) -- intgr #%@! 19:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello
i think my move is not a ads because i shared userbar sites for the users to use :)

have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by NebulaTurk (talk • contribs)


 * Okay, I can understand that, but the article is a spam magnet and a battleground between competing sites. We don't want that kind of stuff happening here, so removing all of these links is justified &mdash; Wikipedia is not a link directory, it is an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT). You should also note that there was a comment telling specifically not to add links, right where you inserted them.


 * I don't hold any hard feelings, but I will continue to remove such links from the article, until a different consensus is reached on the article's talk page. -- intgr #%@! 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You know
It's really not nice to come to people's talk page to call them antisocial.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that was not at all what I tried to convey. I did not call you antisocial, I said that prodding articles without letting people know is antisocial, in (what I think was) a humble tone. -- intgr #%@! 12:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Sorry, I had some nasty people chasing me around for a few weeks, so I guess I'm a bit touchy about such remarks.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)