User talk:Intgr/Archive 7

Fushi Copperweld
Excuse me, what links did you remove and why? You suggest I was link spamming. In fact, I was not. I was listing the patent holder for Copper-clad steel manufacturing on relevant wiki entries. The only patent holder, and the only company (who in fact the Process of copper-clad steel is named after, Copperweld) to even be able to liscense the product, as a reference on an article about their invention. I just don't understand, please help me to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.137.164 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied at User talk:74.136.137.164‎ -- intgr [talk] 09:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain then why other manufactures are listed on the same pages? Perhaps those should be removed too. On every page.. at least according to your logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.137.164 (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is 1 other link on only 1 of the pages. I let it slide because the page has some claim of being informative, it's not a company that's consistently involved in Wikipedia-doctoring, and it wasn't added by a repeated linking guideline violator. But yes, it may well be removed.
 * PS: These are Wikipedia guidelines, not "my logic". -- intgr [talk] 11:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Zeitgeist Gnome3 IS NOT removable
hi, by personal experience i can state that REALY removing the gnome activity log with/witout zietgeist is NOT possible, unless you prefer a dead end computer in TTY1 having NO desktop at all, at least not reachable for the USER, the HUMAN, from which a computer is just a machinarial slave !!! So please do not remove EVERYTHING becouse you are to UNAWARE off the REALITY out side off your own narrow desktop...socialy spoken, that is ... go out side, have fresh air, be alive, and consider that you can revert your revertion ,..., why all or nothing, if a link is not aproopriete to YOUR standard !! so please READ what people say. THATS IS HUMAN !!! (i program in Z80 assembly since about ehe,....1990 ??) 95.96.201.236 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC) i cant move it down 95.96.201.236 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, you cannot "remove" Zeitgeist entirely because Gnome applications are dynamically linked to the library. You can disable Zeitgeist by going to Gnome system settings, under Privacy, click "Usage & History", set it Off and Clear Recent History. There is no reason to remove it.
 * I am not going to re-add that text because it's written in inappropriate tone and consists of mostly unjustified claims. Zeitgeist does not upload any logs anywhere. Zeitgeist does not know anything about calls since there is no phone functionality in Gnome (Note that your cell phone probably does log them and most users consider that a useful feature). I think GPS/location functionality was planned, but never actually implemented in this software, though I could be wrong here. The Ars article with RMS that you linked is about Unity's Amazon search feature, nothing to do with Zeitgeist or Activity Journal, so no relevance to this article; it's already very well covered at Unity (user interface). The other linked article gives inaccurate advice. First, the path is wrong; it should be /home/user/.local/... with the dot. And you can't use "rm" on a directory without the -r flag. And even if it was accurate, I don't think it would quality as an appropriate external link.
 * Sorry, I just don't see anything worth keeping from this edit. In the future, please provide proper sources for your claims. -- intgr [talk] 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Moon
Thanks for message, on the strength of which I took a closer look at the article. The lead is a bit spammy, but fixable. The rest of the lengthy text consists of character and episode summaries which are entirely unsourced and appear in identical words all over the web. There are two possibilities Perhaps I didn't give the most appropriate tag, although there is no referenced indication of why it is notable, but this appears to be either copyrighted text or OR, and has virtually no content beyond that. I'm not persuaded that there is any point going to AfD on notability grounds when there are more obvious issues. There are too many of this sort of articles where editors just lift content from elsewhere instead of adding referenced text written in their own words.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is copied from another site and is a copyright infringement
 * All the sites copied from Wikipedia, and the unreferenced text is OR
 * I'd think other sites have copied Wikipedia, but it's impossible for anyone to research or dispute this because -- guess what -- you deleted it! :)
 * In any case, if this article is to be deleted, then a summary of it should get merged back into Jonti Picking (which itself isn't a great article, but certainly notable)
 * The character descriptions and episode summaries may be more relevant at http://weeblsstuff.wikia.com/wiki/On_the_Moon
 * -- intgr [talk] 11:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, as you have pointed out, you can read the text at the weeblsstuff site, so you know what's missing. That site says it gets its content from Wikipedia, so we are back to square one. Either the large amount of deleted text is copied from an as yet unidentified source, or it's massive unsourced OR. I'd be prepared to recreate without the disputed text (ie with the character names and episode titles, but no details) but I suspect that the first thing that would happen would be that all the unreferenced text would be replaced, still without any indication of a source. What do you think?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said, your deletion is preventing me from knowing for certain, but I suspect weeblsstuff.wikia.com doesn't contain most of the content that was on the Wikipedia page. You also didn't address the point about merging a summary from "On the Moon" into Jonti Picking.
 * Unsourced content and original research is a content dispute and is not an argument for article deletion.
 * Look, we have two delayed deletion processes for a reason -- to let people (in particular non-administrators involved in editing a page) review the content and decide what to do with it. It also gives a chance for editors to search references and establish notability. I can understand the value of CSD on new page patrol where articles need to be deleted as fast as they're created. But using it for established articles, where multiple people have spent considerable effort on, is not appropriate. It's not like articles of this volume are popping up all the time.
 * It was my bad to request AFD. A PROD is probably more appropriate for situations like this. -- intgr [talk] 13:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are two issues here, which are becoming confused. Notability is a matter for prod/AfD, I agree. Content, if it is copyright or OR is a matter for speedy deletion. I've already offered to recreate without the disputed content, which would give you a number of options


 * Leave as is, given it's been around for a while


 * Then nominate for AfD or Prod on the notability issue (I have no views on this)


 * Add back the removed content with references to proper RS sources


 * What I'm not prepared to do is to recreate with the OR/copyright text intact. Your call, really  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Django MVC
Discussion on Django page. Hi, I am a little new to Wikipedia so please forgive me if I am doing something not right here. Anyway, I am not new to Django, though. I have been using it for all my web development work for 5 years and I found that its framework MVT is not merely an MVC with a twist. I have used MVC framework in other languages as well and they are quite different from MVT in django. I think changing this to reflect the way django community view itself should serve Wikipedia's best interest in looking more authoritative on the subject matter. I'd like to hear your point of view as well but as a heavy user of django framework, I find that current page needs some revisions to make it look right. Kontee (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you haven't yet, first please make yourself familiar with the verifiability policy of Wikipedia. To prevent people from arguing about opinions, we have a policy to require sources.
 * There are two official Django sources stating that it's an MVC framework and saying that the difference is mostly terminology:  "Django follows this MVC pattern closely enough that it can be called an MVC framework"
 * As far as I can tell, the term "MTV" is invented entirely by Django and isn't even a proper class of frameworks. Stating that it's "an MTV framework" will only confuse people.
 * Now, the article could indeed use some additional explanation of Django's terminology. But please don't remove statements that say it's an MVC framework.
 * If you disagree, you're welcome to start a new discussion at Talk:Django (web framework) to get more opinions. (Feel free to copy-paste this topic there to start off). There was an earlier discussion at Talk:Django (web framework). -- intgr [talk] 09:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rabin fingerprint
I suspect you are right that "it needs a cryptographic hash".

Forgive me for reverting your edit mentioning "any cryptographic hash" back to "any hash function".

It is not clear to me why LBFS needs a cryptographic hash in the particular part of LBFS that uses the Rabin fingerprint.

I hope we can make the Rabin fingerprint article clearer to me and other readers. (Perhaps Talk:Rabin fingerprint is a better place to continue this conversation). --DavidCary (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Rabin fingerprint -- intgr [talk] 17:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Postgresql upcoming features
Do you realise I just renewed the earlier existing section "upcoming features"?

Such a section was there for 9.3, and that part is now of course integrated as 9.3 stuff.

Why are you for removing that section?

Kweetal 10:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I'm aware that there was a section like this for 9.3 and I think it needs to be deleted as well. Because Wikipedia is not the place for changelogs. See WP:NOT, particularly WP:CHANGELOG and WP:CRYSTAL. I am removing it now so that people don't spend any more time working on something that's not appropriate on Wikipedia.
 * The whole PostgreSQL article is a series of arbitrary lists and badly needs a clean-up. -- intgr [talk] 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * CRYSTAL doesn't apply to the near future (with a set date), at least (notable) movies. [It's a question if future releases of PostgreSQL is notable..] I guess planned features can be cancelled (at any time?). In case they are in beta I would say including is ok. As the upcoming release (as all) is open source it is released in some sense (and could be used, but not recommended for production, while testing is ok and recommended). Really all committed code is release (but not notable). Where should we draw the line (believe will end up in next release), beta, release candidate (alpha?). comp.arch (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note moved discussion to . Stumbled in here and thought I was at the PostgreSQL talk page.. comp.arch (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit to Dual elliptic curve deterministic random bit generator
Why do you think adding "According to Snowden documents" is necessary for WP:NPOV? Nobody has disputed that NSA paid RSA Security $10 million to set it as the default, and RSA Security would surely have disputed it if it was not true. I would rather say that adding "According to Snowden documents" adds a false sense of a disputed fact. Thue (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right. At first it seemed to me that RSA did deny it, but reading their response closer, they actually didn't deny receiving $10M for changing the defaults; they merely said that they didn't know it was a backdoor (heh, willful ignorance). -- intgr [talk] 02:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have so for only seen two news sites on the Internet which reads RSA's blog completely correctly (parse exactly what RSA is claiming and not claiming), and so many misses - I have been emailing them corrections... The one who gets it most wrong is shamefully BBC News, but even Ars Technica is wrongly claiming that RSA asserted the deal wasn't secret :(. It is really rather ridiculous - trust is essential in RSA Security's business, but RSA is doing everything they can to knowingly deceive and mislead their customers, in a way that quickly becomes very obvious and very public, and will surely backfire. Thue (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ï¿½ (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

CDFS
Hi. I don't understand why are you keep deleting my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.34.13.155 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have already explained my objections at Talk:CDFS and so did user . You have been invited to discuss it there multiple times. -- intgr [talk] 15:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

kpatch article
Hello there! Regarding about not creating potentially misleading redirects, I totally agree and here's an additional explanation...  I've created kpatch article as a redirect back at the time when kpatch and kGraft were announced, and my intentions were to turn kpatch redirect into a stub shortly after. Though, kpatch as a project went pretty much silent for a few months thus it hasn't reached the required notability level until a few weeks ago when the RHEL 7.0 was released, so the whole thing became postponed and here we are.

Point taken for the future, thank you! &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

SHA3 removal
Please prove your statement of bazillion sites like that by just showing me one LIKE that. The tool (leventozturk.com/engineering/sha3/) is complete,, tested, easy to use, free,configurable and provides detailed information about each step of the SHA-3 process. I have developed the hardware version of it using this tool. I think it would be very helpful practically to people who is looking into the mechanics of the SHA. Well even if not mine, at least add one working online tool out of bazillion for people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.74.31 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you before. But here you go. Also see WP:NOTLINK, WP:SPAM, WP:EL. Adding lots of links to the same website, presumably your own, is considered spam and an abuse of Wikipedia. The fact that you did it 1 2 3 4 times and they were reverted every time, should be a clear message that these sorts of changes are not welcomed here. -- intgr [talk] 12:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Demoscene
If you can move your Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demoscene discussion to Talk:Demoscene, I'll respond there. (Better to have conversations in a place where the talk history is accessible.) czar  ♔   05:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved it to Talk:Demoscene. -- intgr [talk] 08:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cache memory
I suggest to remove the content of "CPU cache" because it is a subset of a new the description “Cache memory” and to redirect "CPU cache" to "Cache memory" - Ferry24.Milan (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have copied your comment to Draft talk:Cache memory and replied there, to keep the discussion in one place. -- intgr [talk] 15:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed external links
1. frontend development tools:

Hi,

The reason why I added my link is that your page about frontend development tools doesn't really display any tools. Thereby, the article I added is very reliable since I asked 56 frontend development experts (for example Jeffrey Zeldman, Eric A. Meyer & Jeremy Keith) which tools they.

I really think my resource belongs on that wikipedia page since your visitors are searching for information about frontend development tools, and now they only find means like html/css.

Thanks in advance, Bauke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broesink (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, that Wikipedia article is bad, but these links are arguably not appropriate. You, as the author of given source, have a conflict of interest and should not be adding these links. You have attempted to add the same link to multiple articles, and re-added after being reverted, which is spamming. Sorry, all the odds are stacked against you. -- intgr [talk] 15:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Clear. Didn't mean to spam btw, I am new to wikipedia and made some mistakes. I do think it is strange that when I create an article which has way more valuable information than your wikipedia article, you type it as 'conflict of interest' but when you add it as a resource, the visitors might actually learn something more then the basics. Nevertheless, thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broesink (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

2. Numeral system edit by DavidRabahy

How is one meant to make material like Google sheets available while avoiding self-promotion? Such tools can be highly enlightening; sometimes more than static text in the article. –DavidRabahy (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:SHA-2. -- intgr [talk] 23:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Pioneer anomaly revert
Hi, re your revert on Pioneer anomaly. I agree that being published in a leading journal is of course relevant. However, for this paper I specifically searched crossref and the PRL website here and could not find the paper, apart from the arxiv preprint. As the arxiv paper states it was withdrawn it seems to me that the paper was never published in PRL. Do you know the exact citation of the published paper (the original page given doesn't match the PRL ranges in 2003 or 2004)? Otherwise it seems that cite arxiv is appropriate. Thanks Rjwilmsi  07:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry, I think I misunderstood the edit summary of your original edit. I also found this paper saying that the Anderson et al. paper appeared in PRL, but on a second thought that citation was probably copied straight from Wikipedia. I reverted my reversion. -- intgr [talk] 18:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Largest prime number/Collatz conjecture
Dear Intgr,

My contributions to the pages 'Collatz conjecture' and 'Largest prime number' have been removed on the grounds that these have been considered self-promotion. I just wanted to say that I am very disappointed. I think my contribution to the 'Collatz conjecture' was removed by somebody else so I will only be talking about 'Largest prime number' here.

I would like to say that I have spent a lot of time/made a lot of effort obtaining the results I have added to the page; and I had added to the pages to share these results with the community. Yes, there is nothing special about the base-10 number system, but I think it is still nice to see/confirm that we have a uniform distribution of digits. I ,myself, certainly was curious to see what the result of the histogram analysis would be; and I believe there may be others that would have been too. I really do not understand why you have considered this to be self-promotion when I was actually only sharing some (although not ground breaking as such) properties I found of the largest prime number with the community.

Also I would like to point out that you have removed the link I had at 'external links' to the actual digits of the prime number with another link (on the ground that mine was 'not neutral' just because they were on my web-page) but the number the link you have replaced it with gives has twice as many digits as there should be and it ends in 6 which means it would be divisible by 2 and hence can not actually be a prime number. I am sure you would have been disappointed too if you were in my place and very discouraged to make future contributions as well.

I would have been happy to work with you any issues you may have pointed out regarding my contributions rather than delete/classify them as 'self-promotion'.

Kind regards, Baris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bariskanber (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * While self-promotion was my first cause for removing, it's not the only reason why this content is inappropriate. It also goes against Wikipedia's guidelines about no original research and self-published sources.
 * "To share these results with the community" is the wrong reason to edit Wikipedia &mdash; your intention should be to improve the encyclopedia based on knowledge already out there, not to publish your findings. And when having discussions about what material to include/exclude, it should be about the merits of the source, not about "I spent a lot of effort on it". This behavior goes against the conflict of interest guideline.
 * And speaking of the source, if it were some more thorough study into the uniformity/randomness properties of the structure of the number, it might have something going for it. But simply counting the base-10 digits, I just can't get excited about.
 * I understand that you're disappointed, but surely that's not a reason to compromise Wikipedia's values.


 * You are right about the new link not actually containing a prime number. That's weird, I got the link from the original prime announcement press release. Thanks for pointing it out, I will remove it. -- intgr [talk] 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with the whole removal. Please make a talk page suggestion when you want to add your own research or links to your own website. You can use Request edit, but if the work has not been published by a reliable source then it will probably be declined. By the way, http://www.mersenne.org/primes/perfect/perfect57885161.txt is the associated perfect number as the url indicates. It is even and has twice as many digits as the prime. http://www.mersenne.org/primes/?press=M57885161 correctly states which link is the prime (http://www.mersenne.org/primes/digits/M57885161.txt) and perfect number. But I don't think the article should have an external link directly to a file with the decimal expansion. The announcement with various information, including a link to the file, is already in the external links. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your comments. Since this was my first (failed) Wikipedia contribution, I was a novice. I do recognize now what can and can not be considered for addition in the encyclopedia. Regarding the link which, as you say, gave the associated perfect number; yes I do recognize that mersenne.org is not going to give something wrong, it is just that the title of the external link (digits of the prime) and what it actually gave (digits of the associated perfect number) did not coincide. As you have rightly pointed out, there probably isn't any need to have such a link anyway as the relevant information can already be found in the external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.181.215 (talk)

Eric Vanderburg
Thanks for the feedback on the Eric Vanderburg page. You highlighted the methods I used to solve the orphan link problem as tendentious editing. I am about to start working on another page and I want to avoid doing anything that might violate Wikipedia rules. I have read the section on tendentious editing but would you be able to give me some other guidance on how to best contribute here at Wikipedia? Professornova (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I find that there is sufficient evidence of you having a conflict of interest. I am not going to help you game Wikipedia's policies. We do not welcome PR doctors. -- intgr [talk] 02:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I am shocked at your reaction. I love Wikipedia and want to help make it better. I am not trying to game anyone or cause problems and am very sorry to hear that you feel that way. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused you. Professornova (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to be taken seriously, you should start by explaining the discrepancies pointed out by me and John Nagle on Talk:Eric Vanderburg and Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, instead of appealing to emotions. Or, if we're correct, you could disclose your conflict of interest and we can have a discussion about how to proceed from here. -- intgr [talk] 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I commented on both pages.  :) Professornova (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format in Linux articles
Hello! Any chances, please, for you to have a look at and possibly comment there by providing your point of view? The whole thing is pretty much poorly discussed with only a few editors actually discussing it, while it seems to be affecting more than a few articles (and the date format seems to be extending beyond the tables into references, please see history of the Linux distribution article). Any contributions to the discussion would be highly appreciated! &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

EspoCRM
It was wrong to post a direct link to EspoCRM website. I'm not a native speaker and it was hard to create EspoCRM article on wikipedia. EspoCRM is open source product. We often receive messages from happy users. We have started to develop EspoCRM one year ago. The first release was 03\07\2014. Number of EspoCRM downloads is 8,605. Yesterday we have tried to create an article but admins removed it EspoCRM. I ask your help. What shall we do now? Please give an advice.

&mdash; Alexei.av (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I see, many new users fall into this trap of creating an article without realizing how strict some Wikipedia guidelines are. But following these, you should be fine:
 * Every article must pass the notability guideline, citing multiple (at least two) independent reliable sources, with significant coverage of the subject (preferably full length articles about the project). No blogs, no official statements, no sponsored articles, no mailing list posts etc. If you can't do that, then it's just too soon to have an article.
 * Stick to neutrally describing the facts. No lists of awards, no praise, no unnecessary adjectives, nothing you'd expect to see on a sales brochure. Only say what's backed up by sources. If that means your article is just one or two paragraphs long, no problem -- article length is not a factor in deciding whether to keep or delete. We call these "stub" articles, but that's not a criticism.
 * Since you use the word "we", I presume you're affiliated with the project, so you have a conflict of interest, it's recommended not to edit the article. But if you stay neutral, demonstrate good faith and disclose your affiliations (preferably on the article's talk page and your user page), people won't mind. Just be extra careful with neutrality.
 * -- intgr [talk] 20:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much I really appreciate it.
 * -- Alexei.av (talk) 8:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed links from keylogger topic
I am writing to you regarding the links that are deleted. I would like to point out that the document that I set as the source is useful for a topic on which I am adding text on the grounds that it does not contain spam links, but only useful and informative links on high authority sites that are not used for the sale, but for help to expande the thematic content. Please re-consider your decision and a set document because I believe that there are users whose content of the document would be very useful. If it is possible I would like your suggestions of pages on which the document is most appropriate. Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyVi (talk • contribs)


 * I would like to point out that the same link/reference:
 * appeared in 6 different articles
 * within just 2 days
 * added by 3 different editors
 * one of whom has a provable connection to the company hosting the link.
 * Typically it means that such editors are not here for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you are affiliated with the company then you're expected to abide by the conflict of interest guidelines. In particular, you should not add links to your company to articles, but you're welcome to propose adding it on the talk pages of certain articles. Not to get your hopes up though, such edit requests are not always honored. -- intgr [talk] 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Included in" vs. "included into"
Hello! Regarding that changed "kpatch has been included into RHEL 7" to "kpatch has been included in RHEL 7", here are a few thoughts from my side...  While the grammar analysis you've provided states that "included into" is entirely incorrect, both forms sound correct to me. In particular, "A was included in B" sounds to me like A and B joined from the beginning to form a brand new entity C; on the other hand, "A was included into B" sounds to me like B already existed and A was added later. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find a good reference to cover all that, and the closest thing I've found is this page from one book. Please have a look – it isn't that I'm objecting against using "kpatch has been included in RHEL 7" in the first place, it's more about a potentially interesting difference in meanings. :) Thoughts? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not totally sure, but "included into" just sounds wrong to me. I see your point about them having a slightly different meaning, but without your explanation I would not have made that connection. If that's what you're trying to express, how about using a more straightforward phrase like "added to"? -- intgr [talk] 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please, let's also keep in mind that I'm not a native English speaker, what could easily make uncommon or weird constructs more sensible to me. :) I'm fine with keeping "kpatch has been included in RHEL 7" –  kpatch has been shipped as part of the initial production RHEL 7 release instead of being added in some later release/update. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not a native speaker either, but that doesn't stop me from being a grammar nazi. ;) -- intgr [talk] 00:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely nothing wrong in insisting on correct grammar. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Kallithea (software)
In July you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, saying that more sources are available, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"No point in linking to the archive if the original is still up"
That was the last edit on Webix. Well of course it's better to link to the original, but I do expect the original to be taken down for several reasons. What then? Should I keep an eye on the article and save an archive link somewhere, then come back and add it? --  Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 12:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. You won't have to monitor it; if you don't notice it when it's down then someone else will do it. You don't have to "save" the archive link, you (or anyone) can easily look it up based on the original URL.
 * If you feel strongly about this, I won't mind if you re-add them. But I just don't think you should bother with archive links until the website is actually down. -- intgr [talk] 13:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"We don't want lists of patents, you don't see the IBM article listing their thousands of patents"
[Discussion moved to Talk:Globalscape -- intgr [talk] 10:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)]

Am I related
Hi Intgr -- I am NOT related to RhodeCode. Doing this as a project independently. Am basically going to do this for several the tools we use. RhodeCode is my first effort. Thanks! (Karensage (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

Chrisdecorte
Hello, Intgr. I wanted to let you know that I've made a reference to you, or more specifically some correspondence of yours with Chrisdecorte, at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Hotline Miami
The link no longer directs to the intended page. The page frequently references a "Making Of" article, which was pulled down at some point. It therefore redirects to Edge's review of the game, which essentially makes the link completely incorrect. The archive URL bit was a simple oversight by me, thanks for correcting it! :) --George (Talk &middot; Contribs &middot; CentralAuth &middot; Log) 18:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion from LZ4
Hello. You seem to be a productive editor.

This is a small matter. As it happens, I don't support your removal of the statement "In a worst-case scenario, incompressible data gets increased by 0.4%." (and sketchy source) from the LZ4 article.

By design, to quote the entire incompressible byte stream adds a quoting overhead of one 0xFF length byte associated with every 255 bytes of uncompressed data. It's slightly more OR than making an unsourced claim that wrapping quote marks around an N character string increases the representation to N+2 characters.

By taking this statement out, you are catering to the common misunderstanding that there is such a thing as a compression algorithm which only ever makes the object smaller. By far this is the more severe of the two evils.

I also don't support this removal (one-time-only IP editor):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LZ4_%28compression_algorithm%29&diff=prev&oldid=653088035

Your call on both issues. I'm not going to wade in with my own edits. &mdash; MaxEnt 03:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I replied at Talk:LZ4 (compression algorithm). -- intgr [talk] 11:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Removal of archive URLs
Archive URLs are important, even if the site going down or breaking its URLs eventually is an unlikely occurrence, or you complain simply because of loading time. Using the |deadurl=no parameter keeps the main copy as the primary URL. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, that solves the immediate issue I had with it. But help me out here, what's the point of archive urls if the original site isn't going under? Has there been any previous discussion on this? You assert that they're important, but didn't . Seems to me like a waste of time and making wiki markup more complicated than it needs to be.
 * But I note that Requests for comment/Dead url parameter for citations passed with no oppose votes so clearly the consensus is on your side. -- intgr [talk] 07:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

SQL Shack links
Hi intgr,

I am new to Wikipedia, and SQL Shack is a site I read often being an SQL Server noob. I've been adding several links to SQL Shack articles because I think they would be a useful addition to existing Wikipedia articles, describing the same topic as linked SQL Shack article.

I've read the external linking guidelines, and I couldn't find the reason for considering these links a spam. I am wondering if writing a Wikipedia article about SQL Shack would help? If so, can I try creating this article and submit to others to review?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Milos.kosta (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding a link here or there is fine. But apart from one instance, all your edits have been adding links to the same sqlshack.com website. There were no links to it anywhere on Wikipedia prior to your edits, so this looks like it could be an attempt at promotion. WP:SPA and WP:LINKSPAM ("repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed") apply. Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a link directory, adding external links often leads to list creep and distracts from Wikipedia's primary purpose of aggregating useful facts and information.


 * External links are often included in citations, to back up claims made in Wikipedia. While adding citations to reliable sources is generally a good thing, I cannot recommend adding citations to sqlshack given your behavior now. (And I'm not entirely certain whether it satisfies WP:RS)


 * If you wish to create an article about SQL Shack, you need to make sure it can strictly satisfy WP:GNG: you need to be able to cite at least two-three sources that discuss SQL Shack in length, which are published by recognized media organisations. Articles that don't pass this requirement are often deleted. -- intgr [talk] 10:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated. I won't add links to sql shack. Also, I'll see if there are two-three recognizable sources discussing sqlshack before I try to create the article. -- Milos.kosta (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Counter mode
I'm writing regarding my edit from 18 May 2015‎: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_mode_of_operation#Counter_.28CTR.29

Since nonce is a unique rather than random value, you can as well use a counter for it. Let's say you encrypt 2 blocks with nonce=0:

c[0] = m[0] xor PRF(key, 0 /* nonce */ xor 0 /* counter */) c[1] = m[1] xor PRF(key, 0 xor 1)

Then, for another message, you do "nonce++" and encrypt other two blocks:

c'[0] = m'[0] xor PRF(key, 1 xor 0) c'[1] = m'[1] xor PRF(key, 1 xor 1)

Now, as you can see, the second parameter to PRF in the c[1] case is equal to the parameter in c'[0] case. Thus, the one time pad is actually a two time pad, and xoring the ciphertexts will cancel out the encryption:

c[1] xor c'[0] = m[1] xor PRF(key, 0 xor 1) xor m'[0] xor PRF(key, 1 xor 0) = m[1] xor m'[0]

Hopefully now you see that this completely breaks under the chosen-plaintext attack. Note though that if you concatenate the nonce and counter rather than using xor/add, then this won't happen. Obviously you have to concatenate in a secure way, like having nonce and counter in two separate 64bit variables and storing nonce in upper 128bit, and counter in lower 128bit. You want to avoid doing just "string" contatenation, in which case you could end up with:

"1" /*nonce*/ || "11" /*counter*/ = "111" "11" || "1" = "111"

This would also be completely insecure.

24.5.2015

Content Scramble System

 * [Discussion moved to Talk:Content Scramble System -- intgr [talk] 13:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)]

LWN slogan
Hi. Thanks for your edits to LWN.net. It seems I'm seeing a different version of the site slogan than you are, which intrigues me. I've taken the image I see at https://lwn.net/images/lcorner.png and saved a copy at http://cchittleborough.cluemail.com/LWN-logo.png. Do you see a different image when you visit lwn.net? If so, what is its URL?

This would not be the first time Estonian and Australian web users saw different things on the same page, but I would not have expected LWN to do that. Cheers, CWC 04:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see now, the reason is that I am logged in have enabled the new "responsive design" https://lwn.net/Articles/622988/ version of the website. You're right, I will revert until this becomes the default for non-logged-in users. -- intgr [talk] 13:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A-ha! Thanks for that. CWC 15:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Linter SQL RDBMS has been removed copyrighted material
Could you please let me know how should I add information about RDBMS as a representative of company? What kind of applications should be filled and sent to let this open information published? By the way, I have just updated the table information, which was previously used in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denis-relex (talk • contribs)


 * As a representative of the company, you should be very careful when editing the article, per Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. Wikipedia articles should not consist of such large tables (WP:PROSE); and articles must conform to the neutral point of view policy, whereby most claims must come from secondary sources, not primary sources like the official marketing page for a product. Given these requirements, this content is not really appropriate for Wikipedia, sorry.
 * I understand that this list was originally added in 2009, and back then Wikipedia was much less strict about policies/guidelines than it is now. -- intgr [talk] 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thermomix
why did you remove the instruction manual section of the thermomix page because it might be useful for people to see the instruction manual section if they want instruction manuals for their thermomixes they can look at the wiki page and see the link for the instruction manuals in the page they can just click the link and it will go to the manual page which might be useful for some people.

Nathanielcwm (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)nathanielcwmNathanielcwm (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Because Wikipedia doesn't just accept everything that's "useful", Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia, not a link directory (among other things). See also WP:ITSUSEFUL. It's far easier to locate these manuals using a web search anyway.
 * PS: In the future, I recommend keeping article-related discussion on the article's talk page, so other interested users can also join. You can use Ping to invite users to the discussion. -- intgr [talk] 11:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

COI concern in Nicotine Withdrawal
Hi, In response to your restoring the comment about the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) editing the Nicotine Withdrawal page, I wanted to explain why I put that message in and why I deleted it. I was the one who made edits to Nicotine Withdrawal after getting some edit suggestions from other members of SRNT, which is a scientific group focused on learning about tobacco and nicotine and working to reduce tobacco addiction and use. I initially put the note in because I thought it would be nice to give the group some recognition. However, in retrospect I see that this is not typical on Wiki, and barring COI concerns, is generally not appropriate. So I removed it. The reason there is no COI concerns is that no one on the group was paid to do this or had any motive other than improving the accuracy and referencing of scientific information on the webpage. The group was not officially involved, it was just a few people in the group. Let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate your efforts in encouraging disclosures when appropriate, it is important. Thanks, - DrNicotiana — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrNicotiana (talk • contribs) 16:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * COI is not only about getting paid. Being involved in an activist organization is also potential COI. Is there a good reason not to keep it? -- intgr [talk] 07:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I hear you that COI is about more than being paid. I would respectfully like you to consider my request. The reason is that I don't want to imply these edits are on behalf of the organization, because they're not. Also, to clarify, SRNT is a scientific organization, not an activist one. My deletion request is that just like a doctor who is a member of the American Academy of Dermatology wouldn't be expected to nor would it be appropriate for them to put "This entry was edited by a member of the American Academy of Dermatology" on anything dermatology they edit, neither does it make sense here.DrNicotiana (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, that makes sense. Sorry to spend your time with this tangential issue. -- intgr [talk] 22:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Tryad Article
Hello. I created the newest attempt of the article for the music collective called Tryad. I understand that this page has been created and deleted in the past, and that the page once again is at risk of deletion because of the lack of sources that are not self-published. Normally, I would try to find such sources. However, Tryad seems to have largely avoided a lot of media attention. Searching for the group on Google News brings up no news stories that pertain to the band Tryad. The closest I can get is articles that merely give links to their songs/website. Because of this, I ask you to understand that the use of self-published sources is because of the situation, not laziness. To put this in a different way, I would use other sources as soon as they emerge; and I ask that this article remain in the meantime to allow for awareness to spread, thus allowing for the publicity needed for those sources to be made. Muffins94 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but to remain fair, I can not withdraw my deletion. If the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines then it does not belong to Wikipedia (yet?). Wikipedia has the notability guideline in order to fulfill the neutrality and reliability goals -- Wikipedia requires content to be verifiable via reliable sources. In particular, Wikipedia is not the place "to allow for awareness to spread" -- that sounds like using Wikipedia to promote the artist.
 * You're welcome to present your arguments in the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Tryad (4th nomination). The most persuasive arguments would be how the subject satisfies WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC.
 * If the article is deleted and at some point later Tryad does gain sufficient notability, then you can request undeletion at WP:DELREV. -- intgr [talk] 08:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had the fortune to come across a rare treat: an interview with a couple of members of Tryad that is not self-published. Please kindly review the article once this source is incorporated. Thank you. Muffins94 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion is a community process, you should write at Articles for deletion/Tryad (4th nomination), not to me personally. -- intgr [talk] 13:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Terabit Ethernet
Please recheck article history since that content wasn't added by me - discuss. --Zac67 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I was editing under caffeine deficiency! :) I'll remove that notice from your talk page. -- intgr [talk] 18:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic Address Translation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dynamic Address Translation. Since you had some involvement with the Dynamic Address Translation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Dynamic address translation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dynamic address translation. Since you had some involvement with the Dynamic address translation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

ashley madison passwords
FWIW a second guy did crack the bcrypt passwords and got 4000 accounts, with a similar set of most common passwords. http://www.pxdojo.net/2015/08/what-i-learned-from-cracking-4000.html Gaijin42 (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  14:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Infrared blaster
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Infrared blaster without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Coretheapple (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the removal edit message before reverting. That content was split (moved) to the List of devices with IR blaster article. -- intgr [talk] 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry, that was a mistake. Coretheapple (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the tip of WP:REDNOT at Threefish regarding Tadayoshi Kohno. Stewi101015 (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The thanking editor is found to be a sock of a blocked editor. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Zen (microarchitecture)
I'm the author of the blog, which has been used as reference #13 and marked as unreliable source by you. I gave my own source, on which my analysis and diagram is based on. It's a GNU compiler patch by AMD. The numbers of ALUs, AGUs and FPUs should be correct. The only numbers, which still might be wrong as result of copy pasting from other GCC patches by the patch author, are the cache sizes. Idea: Remove cache sizes or at least mark them as rumour. Dresdenboy (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for getting in contact. This is nothing specific about your blog post, I have no reason to suspect that anything there is incorrect. But simply, self-published sources like blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. See WP:USERGENERATED, WP:RS.
 * I think the paragraph and citation may well stay in he article until a better source appears to replace it. -- intgr [talk] 20:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thankyou for notifying me regarding this. When I was looking for an informative page for the citations, I came across these websites. I will make sure that I will work on it with reliable sources in future. (Natasha Miranda (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC))

Re:SHA-1
Thank you, I know all about referencing. I assumed the reference to "The Fappening" and "Snapchat" was so glaringly obvious that it was unlikely to be challenged, and thus per WP:V did not need a citation. I was only documenting it for later years when the those terms are no longer current. But since you have challenged it, I'll try to find something. The problem is, some things are so obvious that news writers feel it would be condescending to the reader state them explicitly. (That, and both the name and issue of "The Fappening" are somewhat NSFW.) Although technically not enough for WP:V, do you think a Talk:SHA-1 consensus would be enough? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * [Replied at User talk:71.41.210.146. -- intgr [talk] 09:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)]

Spelling of "licence"/"license"
Hi Intgr, I see you reverted a load of my edits, in which I changed the spelling from "licencing" to "licensing", or from "licenced" to "licensed". You claimed WP:ENGVAR as the reason for your revert, however ENGVAR has nothing to do with it. In British English, "licence" is used for the noun, and "license" (and hence "licensing" and "licensed") is used for the verb. This is clearly set out in MOS:S. I accept that "licence" is technically correct as an alternative spelling of the verb, but this is not common in official or contemporary writing and so should not be used in Wikipedia (except in quotations). This has already been discussed on my Talk page. Bazonka (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok sorry, I was under the impression that "licencing" is a common spelling in British English, but I guess it's a common misconception instead. Anyway, I think you should get community consensus for correctness at WP:PUMP first and then link to that consensus from your edit messages. What should I do with my reversions, should I re-revert them all? -- intgr [talk] 14:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm not sure I should raise it at the Pump as there is already lots of debate taking place both on my talk page and AN/I about the spellings so I don't want to confuse things by raising it elsewhere. (I thought it was all sorted when I wrote my note to you above, but it's started up again.) Consensus seems to be falling my way (backed up by good evidence) but there are some people who are stubbornly resisting. So in the meantime let's let your reverts stand, and I can change them again once the debate is finally settled. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Create, read, update and delete
Hi Intgr, the acronym DRULAB is relevant because it describes an important modification of the concept. Besides, it's for many parts of the IT industrie a law inside the European Union (with 500 million citizens it does probably matter a lot...). Since the European Court of Justice canceled Safe Harbor it is a major topic. I would refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29, but the text is not up to date. You can look into the press release here: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-10/cp150117en.pdf and for the German Federal Data Protection Act, which describes the locking, please refer to http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bdsg/englisch_bdsg.html#p0305 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.202.126 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I copied your message to Talk:Create, read, update and delete and replied there. -- intgr [talk] 22:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Paging
Glad you liked my copy-editing of this article. The person who placed the template ("This section is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.") presumably wants information on Windows 8 or Windows 10, but I can't help with this. Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Crypto
Could you have a look at http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/why-algebraic-eraser-may-be-the-most-risky-cryptosystem-youve-never-heard-of/, Algebraic Eraser Diffie–Hellman, Derek Atkins, Michael Graff and the accounts that created those articles. There seem to be some COI/NPOV issues here. Cheers, —Ruud 02:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a good source. Indeed, the more I look at the article, the more suspicious it seems. I'll try to find more time to make changes to the article. -- intgr [talk] 10:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Plücker Matrix
Thanks for your edits of the Plücker Matrix article. I have no experience with Wikipedia edits and I found that I am not able to move that page (see talk page). Can you? As for inline references, it is difficult to pin down the exact page numbers in a book. Is that really useful? Aaichert (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edits. And don't worry about lack of experience, you're allowed to make mistakes, see WP:BOLD. I've moved the page for you, but you should have the move permission now already, after making 10 edits. See WP:MOVE for instructions how to move a page.
 * Inline citations simply means you should use tags no point out which part of the article relies on which source, see WP:CITE. If you don't feel comfortable with it, don't worry about the stuff. Page numbers are not required. But a range of page numbers is helpful, particularly in longer textbooks, to make it clear where the source talks about the subject. -- intgr [talk] 22:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Repulsion
Right so what do you intend to do about the mislinks noted at WP Physics? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about; I have no intention of going beyond the edits I made at Repulsion (disambiguation). -- intgr [talk] 23:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File system fragmentation
Hi.

I am a little shocked the you deleted a sentence that had a source associated with and called it original research!

Here is what the source says: "It’s also somewhat of a misconception that fragmentation is not a problem on SSDs. If an SSD gets too fragmented you can hit maximum file fragmentation (when the metadata can’t represent any more file fragments) which will result in errors when you try to write/extend a file. Furthermore, more file fragments means more metadata to process while reading/writing a file, which can lead to slower performance."

And... "Additionally, there is a maximum level of fragmentation that the file system can handle. [... Read on]"

Also, as you are aware, statements in the lead need not have a footnote as long as the body has one. (WP:LEAD)

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved this discussion to Talk:File system fragmentation and replied there. -- intgr [talk] 09:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Computer Museums in the world


A tag has been placed on List of Computer Museums in the world requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Reported Singleissuevoter for editwarring
Hi, I want to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for edit warring at Block chain (database). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

regarding Relex Group page
Hi, Intgr

Ok, so you did not propose the deletion of the page. That's fine. I have no notification or warning or email that the page was going to be deleted nor that it has been deleted. Today I randomly typed the name on Google and I noticed it had no hits on Wikipedia.

How can I find out who deleted it and why?

Whom should I contact?

Thanks for help, mate!

Tiamarchos (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is all already answered on your own discussion page, see User talk:Tiamarchos. Also, in your email you implied that you're affiliated with the company. Please do not edit articles about entities you're affiliated with, without a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, see WP:COI. -- intgr [talk] 12:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)