User talk:Zhen-Xjell

Castlecops link spam?

 * In addition to below, please see ongoing discussions Votes for deletion/CastleCops and Talk:Spyware. --Paul Laudanski 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If it is not your intention to spam Wikipedia with these links, I apologize for using the expression. Nonetheless, your posting of links to this site on a number of computer-security-related articles (such as spyware) seems to have constituted a large portion of your activity here on Wikipedia. This sets off my and other people's "spam radar", as it were. --FOo 02:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have included links to various locations in security related topics here trying to assist in making articles more informative. Have you followed the links I left to see the kind of information provided? Are those articles/pages/databases to be considered spam?--Paul Laudanski 02:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you add links without any need to have them. If we already have useful links that provide the information we need (as in the case of the spyware article), we don't need additional ones that exist just for the sake of link spam. If you wanted to add links as references, that'd be fine. If the links actually contributed something to the article that wasn't there already, that'd be fine. But the way you are adding links, and the fact that you are adding tons of redudndant links from a site you work for, makes your links obvious link spam. -- LGagnon 02:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok so help me to understand the redundant links for example. In the Research section I created, there were links to various pages for researching data.  Not all of it is the same.  One link led to a list of startups, another led to processes, another to LSPs, and so on.  I did not see in Spyware such links and I know that information is used by researchers to help remove spyware.--Paul Laudanski 02:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)  EDIT: Another question for instance is Ad-Aware.  With Lavasoft shutting free forum support down, I wanted to put in the various places on the web that offer targetted community support.  --Paul Laudanski 02:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "Various pages" meaning several links to your website, a site moved from another section, and one other? That sounds like a cover-up for link spam. With the Ad-aware article, you gave several from your site but none from the rest of the web. And you added several from your site when there was only need for one. -- LGagnon 02:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to you in Wikiquette_alerts.--Paul Laudanski 02:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Broadbandreports Wikiquette alert
I saw your message over at Wikiquette alerts. You are, in my opinion, within reason to revert that addition, particularly as I count at least 2 other editors also reverting it. You state your reasoning in the edit summary, and briefly. If the material continues to reappear, you could, when reverting it, mention in the summary that you've explained why on the talk page. Then go to the talk page and say clearly why. You might also leave a message on the anon IP's talk page directing them politely to the article's talk. I doubt that this will prove necessary, however since, generally speaking, editors who do not register but are repeatedly reverted soon get bored and are no longer a problem. Do stick to the 3 revert rule, however, since there would be no "reversion of vandalism" defence in this case, I think.-Splash 01:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi'ya Splash, it now seems the same information has been reinserted from a different anon IP. I will write something on the IP's Talk, and also make mention in the BBR Talk page.  Any additional guidance you can provide is appreciated.--Paul Laudanski 12:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have been so slow to respond. I've been operating mainly in the Real World today. I see Rhobite has also posted on the article's talk page indicating a fairly long-running campaign by the user in question. I presume they come and go, so the best (only) thing to do is revert them when they turn up. Different anon IPs are very annoying but they too can be blocked if they violate the 3RR since it applies to a person not a username/address. At present they appear to be scrupulously avoiding it however. I fear this will just be one of those annoyances that is around some days and not around others &mdash; revert-and-ignore and don't give them the satisfaction of any further attention. At least you have other editors on board with you (I've added it to my watchlist too). -Splash 21:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Splash
Thank you Splash for your welcome, introduction to WP, and the feedback on my entry in WP Alerts. I did read about the 3 revert rule, but it slipped my mind... I admit, I'm sorely new at WP and there is a ton of information I'm still digesting. Your welcome information is a huge help, and your words are highly encouraging. I appreciate the time you took to "talk" to me.--Paul Laudanski 01:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I hope you enjoy editing! -Splash 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I had no clue how exciting this was until CastleCops was put up for Votes for deletion/CastleCops. Now it seems I can't get away and I'm finding more articles to participate in.  I also want to spend some more time in the security focused articles.  Hopefully the ways of WP will soon become one with me.  (smile) TIA --Paul Laudanski 01:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Goodness, what a way to be introduced to WP! Don't take the terse comments after the votes in VfD personally; over 100 articles a day are discussed and VfD regulars need some way to keep the time required down a bit! It's unfortunate that we get so many websites/fora/blogs/etc turn up here; we'd turn into Google if we kept them all. You can imagine that some sites do try to use WP to raise their Google pagerank or get free advert space (or even to post a rant about a rival site) and it does seem to have become the assumption on VfD that this is what all web-related entries must be. This is unfortunate because there are some out there that do warrant articles here. You seem to be getting some useful feedback from at least one user, however, so even if the article winds up deleted (which needs a 2/3 majority usually, by the way, discounting votes from brand-new users usually) you'll have learnt lots. -Splash 02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and sorry for the late response on me. It was nice to see a change in vote today, but ultimately the article was deleted. C'est la vie.  ;)  --Paul Laudanski 02:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * C'est la vie indeed. I'm glad you have found other areas to contribute to, though. If your website eventually becomes seriously notable, you can always bring it back here with an updated article in the eventual future. -Splash 02:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I've been enjoying learning more of WP and getting outside the scope of security. --Paul Laudanski 04:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fate of CastleCops
For those who are curious, I thought a section on this might serve best. Thanks for all who supported to Keep the article in the VfD, but it wasn't meant to be on WP. Here is the archive of the discussion: Votes_for_deletion/CastleCops. Cheers. --Paul Laudanski 04:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you aren't being totally objective and it was spam and/or vanity. :) In any event I've asked for the CastleCops article to be undeleted to my userspace at Votes_for_undeletion so that I might understand why your article failed the "encyclopedic" test. --Ikester 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ike. I admit that CastleCops is close to my heart, so the comments given by folks like User:RainR certainly helped me I think.  It'd be nice to get the final edits to that article before it was deleted. --Paul Laudanski 15:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well as an update, User:Grue undeleted CastleCops as a result of the temporary undeletion request via the link above and placed it into your userspace Ike: User:Ikester/CastleCops. --Paul Laudanski 15:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ike, the original link you gave no longer contains the Votes for Undeletion discussion, and I found it after some searching here in the history for the VfU (view left side of the compare). --Paul Laudanski 23:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome template
I suggest that you copy it into your userspace somewhere, and change the talk page link to point to your talk page. Apart from that, feel free to use it! Since it has a section header, make sure to substitute it when you place it, or people could accidentaly edit it instead of their talk pages. If you are looking for an easy way to deposit it, check out the work of WP:WPUS - I can add mine to a page (and save it) with one click once I'm editing the page. All the best, Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 23:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll take a look. I did make some minor edits to ensure my name was there. If I have questions, I'll reply here.  :D --Paul Laudanski 23:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK I have a subuser page for Welcome now, but how do I add it when in a talk page outside of a copy/paste? --Paul Laudanski 23:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry to take so long - use something like &#123;&#123;subst:/Welcome&#125;&#125; &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; and remember to leave an edit summary. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 10:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ahh thank you! My computer died and my new one is back online today.  I've been gone from WP during this. --Paul Laudanski 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 04:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Ccsp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ccsp.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 15:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Rideruniversity.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Rideruniversity.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GoogleTap


The article GoogleTap has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * long unreferenced, non-notable program with no context for the lay reader

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of GoogleTap for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GoogleTap 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/GoogleTap 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)