User talk:Vivek.m1234

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Grex
Hey Veek, it's Tan(is). Let me know if you want any help/advice/whatnot on the Cyberspace article. Tan  &#124;   39  15:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, hi Tanis! Yes! I could use a lot of help. I just mailed Jan asking him to waive rights for his images. I'm going to badger that fellow nate and get him to go to the library and dig out material. I'm a n00b at all this so.. feel free to do what you want with the article. I'm still gathering data and cites. As you can see.. I haven't figure out the talk thing yetVivek.m1234 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As Nate would tell you, I was the catalyst in getting the previous Cyperspace article deleted (inasmuch as I nominated it for deletion here). The problem isn't with images or sources, Veek - the problem is in notability. Per Wikipedia guidelines set forth at WP:WEB, we have to show that Grex meets one of these three criteria:


 * 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.  This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles,  books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
 * 2) * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
 * 3) * Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
 * 4) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
 * 5) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).


 * I think it's pretty clear that Grex doesn't meet the last two points - it has not won awards and it is not distributed material. The first point is probably the important one - and the sticking point is the word "subject". We can demonstrate until we are blue in the face that the Grex legal case has been cited in various places, but until we can come up with some published works that primarily cover Grex - and is independent of Grex itself - we're pretty dead in the water. Feel free to invite Nate to this conversation (he participated in that deletion discussion I linked to above, but with a weak argument, as far as Wikipedia guidelines and policies are concerned). Tan   &#124;   39  05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tanis, verily I say unto thee, thou are quite correct in saying that the Wiki article will flunk the Wiki::WEB notability guidelines. Fortunately, you are possibly misinterpreting those guidelines and applying them in the wrong place (essentailly you are thinking like a guy with a background in bio, who doesn't use the shell much :p). Here is why:

1. Grex is not solely a web-forum or a web-site. ("Agora" is only a part of what we do; we aren't a Gardening website or a Metalworking website - though we have "Gardening" forum-channel-thingies). Web-content is only one of our minor offerings!

We are primarily a free Unix shell-provider (would you consider your PC to be a web-site-thingy, or a computing tool?). It so happens that that we are also a Virtual Community (because we have mail, BBS, party, talk and a shit load of users who login). We are different from Virtual Communities (Flickr, MySpace, GardenWeb) in that we offer raw CPU to run programs (Python, Perl, Ruby, GDB Expect, TCL, the list is long).

Yes, we are on the Internet and are accessible via the Internet, but our "content" is processing power and not web-content! Think back to the old days when students connected to Grex to get home-work done, and they still do (pidgin C); don't look at Grex through Flickr tainted eyes.

2. If you carefully consider the above, we are a free-ISP/BBS-organization AND we ought to be considered under: WP:ORG. - Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations

Non-commercial organizations 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.) - Which we do! Our scope IS international and the various cites confirm our activities and usefulness (Thai books on hacking, books on forensic computing, dummies guide - that have USED Grex as a tool in writing the book).

- To quote: "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." - The Wiki is specific about how small organizations/non-profits ought to be dealt with. You (being a bio major) may not find Grex particularly useful for programming and may choose to use the forums, but that doesn't negate the fact that we are unique and useful as a shell. Just because modern trends have changed towards Flickr shouldn't diminish our value on the Wiki.

3. From a Commonsense perspective: - "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists" - Is there ANY wholly non-profit organization, on the entire Internet, which offers anonymous Tor access to the shell, for free, with no licensing claims on screen-captures, with such a large variety of tools? Arbornet is about the closest but secondary (started of as a commercial organization). SDF - pay; PolarHome - pay; The WELL - pay; all of them started as pay, and then went semi-free/free.

Since all our software is free, open-src, and can be easily-verified to be as such (open governance) authors can safely take snap-shots and screen-captures with absolutely no fear of copyright-laws. We have been offering this service since 1991 (19 years. very consistent.) - Grex is unique.

And I'll quote from the guidelines: --- "The organizations longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive." --- All those book-cites are merely to illustrate the fact that people have used Grex, to their advantage: "please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on  education" Even in terms of culture, we've been offering free access since 1991 - when The WELL and Arbornet were charging it's customers. You can't deny that much of todays free culture movement was started off by guys like Grex. -

The article illustrates all these aspects (the organization, the software we use, the community that makes this possible, and to illustrate our commitment to free-speech and open-access, we have Cyberspace vs Engler).

It also illustrates how a model BBS is run (the software packages that were used, the old hardware pics, dial-in lines, open-src ideology). It provides the reader with a feel of what it took to actually run a BBS (from the provider point of view) and the pictures are illustrative of this - not seen any article on the Wiki that illustrates this, the way Jan Wolter's and SRW's pics, do! Check out the article on The WELL (marketing bullshit) or the main, BBS page - they have some crummy pics of a stupid console (user point of view).Vivek.m1234 (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent points, and I'll buy the WP:ORG argument in point 1 (in fact, I referenced this in my nomination for AfD for the previous live article). The problem still comes in to notability. You referenced the "primary criterion" above, let's visit that:


 * "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."


 * Again, as I said before, we can find mentions of Grex all over the place - legally, in hacking books, Ann Arbor news, etc - and we still need to come up with better sources (in my opinion, of course). Nothing I have seen has Grex as the primary subject of the article/book and is significant/reliable enough to use as a notability source. I'll be gone for most of the day today; I'll check this page tonight. Tan   &#124;   39  13:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

- Right, so now we are dealing with Notability when it comes to the specific case of non-profits and small organizations. This is why I feel leeway can be given to Grex in terms of Notability: Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations

The following sections discuss other alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations. 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)

The way I see it, all we need to do is meet criteria (1) and then prove verifiability (2) - that's it. I don't see the room for doubt?? Vivek.m1234 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think you're missing the primary criteria. You're thinking that if part 1 can be proven (national or international in scope), then part 2 can be fulfilled by the current sourcing, which does not satisfy the primary criteria. Find sourcing where Grex is the subject of the work. Tan   &#124;   39  17:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Dan, apologies for the delay in replying. Yeah, I think perhaps you are correct and I'm sorry for the delay and wasted-time in recognizing it. I spoke to some guys on IRC and they confirmed what you said :p *duh* Vivek.m1234 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no "duh", veek. This is complicated stuff, and remember that policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. I would like to see grex (and mnet, if it so happens) articles up on Wiki - but I just can't figure out how to adequately show notability. Tan   &#124;   39  13:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Vivek.m1234, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Vivek.m1234/Picospan. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Greetings , I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, hi! thanks :) Vivek.m1234 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Modems GVC14.4 ChaseIOLan 28.8Hayes.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Modems GVC14.4 ChaseIOLan 28.8Hayes.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olwm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

February 2014
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Bitcoin does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 10:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Phone board and watt hour meter.jpg


The file File:Phone board and watt hour meter.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:GrexSpares4 670.jpg


The file File:GrexSpares4 670.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:8086 IBM PC and 100MHz Pentium.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:8086 IBM PC and 100MHz Pentium.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)