Hello, ClareTheSharer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
I've been using the Visual Editor to make changes to existing articles, but when it's time to include a citation I can't see a way to insert properly tagged information about it - only a reference with linked text. What am I missing? ClareTheSharer (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried it. Once I realised I had to type "Cite" (that it didn't appear on its own) I made a little progress, but filling out the citation seemed to involve me knowing all the parameters possible and typing their names correctly, rather than filling in a form. As I have no clue what parameters are possible, I made no progress. IS there something I am missing here? Otherwise I will stick to copy & paste of an existing citation, but that then precludes using the Visual Editor... ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The cite template is pretty complicated, and the Visual Editor doesn't know all its parameters (yet). Welcome to using beta software! ;) In my opinion, for the citation templates, it's best to copy one, form another article, or from the template documentation itself ( {{cite}} / {{citeweb}} / {{citenews}} etc. ), and adjust it from there. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of FLOSS Weekly episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basho. 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.
Because it misleadingly implies the topic is directly relevant to the band. If the template was about Fulber it would be reasonable, but FLA is another band altogether. I suggest the Template is unhelpful and needs rework to avoid this conflict. I won't revert your edit again for 24 hours as I don't war. ClareTheSharer (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dear Clare, thank you for sharing! Thank you for caring about OSI (Open Source Initiatives) and please I know about the tears thing. Let's try to have more smiles, they are easier and take less energy to form (and keep)...Many thanks, Stumbling Monk (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ClareTheSharer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I was just reading your user page declaration and wanted to drop you a note and say how much I enjoyed it. Your approach seems fairly unique here or at least your declaring of it is! - Ahunt (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ClareTheSharer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi @Zhermes. JavaScript and the Java Virtual Machine are not connected in any way, so it is incorrect to make a link from one term to a page about the other. More generally on Wikipedia it's not good to make changes when you don't have a citation to support them. ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. At the same time the JavaScript Runtime Environment and the Java Runtime Environment (discussed in the same page) are extremely similar and related concepts. Enough so that the JavaScript Runtime Environment is also references in that page, and that a dedicated page for the JavaScript Runtime Environment would likely be almost entirely redundant. So it's not entirely clear to me that this isn't a valid reference (although, perhaps the reference should be included parenthetically, for example: "(similar to the Java Runtime Environment)." And while I appreciate your point about the importance of citations, it hardly seems relevant when adding an intra-wiki link... What do you think? Zhermes (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are connected in as much as they are both potentially interpreters, but that's about where it stops - they are no more related than any other runtime is related. You may be mislead by the names; Sun allowed Netscape to call their unrelated BASIC-like scripting language with a similar name to Sun's emulated microprocessor instruction set and associated systems language for marketing reasons alone. It is incorrect to draw further connections and it would be misleading to readers unfamiliar with to subject to make the connection in the article in any way. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ForgeRock
Hello,
Concerning this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/837123955 , I do not understand the value of this sentence. It is stating what everybody knows about open source software: the one who writes the code owns the copyright.
The sentence in the edit is worded as if there was a legal risk. But due to the license (CDDL), no such risk exists.
Why is it interesting to state this fact on this article and not in any other article? (First time I see such content, and yet I have read many articles about open source software)
The Oracle code is licensed under CDDL so anybody can do the same as ForgeRock (and other companies have done it).
Said otherwise, this sentence has no encyclopedic value in my opinion.
If you think it should be kept, I would be happy to have convincing arguments in favour of it.
Hi! Sorry, I have been off Wikipedia for travel. Here's why I think it is justified:
+ Not all open source projects have the copyright owned by a project non-participant, so it's not a universal attribute of open source software (although common for forks)
+ In this case, the copyright owner is actually a competitor who tried to kill the project in favour of a commercial product, which is more unusual
+ The cited source alludes to the situation with the phrase "The community owns these projects just as much as FORGEROCK."
+ Forgerock appear to be at best in marginal compliance with the CDDL and thus there is a potential legal risk
This is the first time I see such sentence for an article for a fork on wikipedia, I have never seen it in any other article, so I am wondering why this is much different here?
+ In this case, the copyright owner is actually a competitor who tried to kill the project in favour of a commercial product, which is more unusual
Oracle is not the sole copyright owner. Granted: they own the copyright on most of the original code, but now, ForgeRock's copyright is significant too. There are even third party copyright owners.
+ The cited source alludes to the situation with the phrase "The community owns these projects just as much as FORGEROCK."
So again, insisting on Oracle feels weird. Speaking about "the community" in general would seem better to me?
+ Forgerock appear to be at best in marginal compliance with the CDDL and thus there is a potential legal risk
I particularly do not understand this one. AFAIK, there is full compliance so I am not sure which legal risk there is?
If there was a legal problem, I would expect Oracle to sue in courts. They have done it in the past and I have no reason to think they have changed their mind about this.
Hello, ClareTheSharer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, ClareTheSharer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Per WP:PRIMARYCARE, "primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name."
Seriously? Thanks for the great advice, Todd. You would do well to pause before arbitrarily reverting everyone's edits as I have seen you do all over Wikipedia. In this case the weight of overall evidence for this date is excellent and you would be better served by adding further supporting data than your usual destructive removal of the good faith and constructive work of others. ClareTheSharer (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, again? You just archived all your own personal attacks on the same post to conceal them from those not paying attention. You are clearly embarrassed by them. Have you considered the things you accuse others of doing might be your own flaws? ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm GermanJoe. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to List of FLOSS Weekly episodes have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is misplaced, and the drive-by nature of the edit without discussing it on the Talk page for the community that maintains the page is disappointing. FLOSS Weekly is a weekly podcast going back a very long time that is conducted purely by volunteers (the show does carry advertising for the company that hosts it). The links you have removed have been painstakingly accumulated by listeners like me over a decade (uncompensated and unrequested) to allow listeners to identify the guests on the shows, and are not part of a link farm or of a commercial advertising activity and your edit is very upsetting to the point of appearing as vandalism. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? What is it with you Wikimedia insiders? It's like you never heard of people having interests and automatically assume they are corrupt. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Heads-up, another Wikimedia editor just removed the twit.tv hyperlinks to the actual podcast episodes, and the note they left suggests even more negative views on keeping the list in Wikipedia. Getting more people involved seems to have made things worse! They seem to be having fun over in their discussion WP:ELN#List_of_FLOSS_Weekly_episodes. Jalansari (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I was just wondering if you could have a look at my Draft page for Amanda Brock (current CEO of OpenUK) for approval - first time wiki editor so i've been trying to get it approved, if you have any tips or pointers that would be great if you have the time. Thank you Amurphy79 (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
