en User talk:Intgr Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Intgr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Deletion of Lost Enterprises

Why not instead of looking for reasons to delete pages, you look for reasons to keep them? I've been seeing "lost..." on t-shirts and decals ever since high school, and I have never had any idea what it meant. I looked on wikipedia for the information, and couldn't find it. It took quite a bit of web searching to find the information. Then I take the time to post it, and you remove it. Does that seem right to you?

You're like a kid at the beach who likes to stamp all over other people's sand castles.Aaronchall (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:5P. Also note that whenever creating an article, you are explicitly warned about this:

"As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted"

I sincerely believe that Wikipedia does not need articles like this; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information we have enough of them and they are only undermining peoples' confidence in Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs more high-quality and verifiable articles.

If you believe that there is a valid reason to restore the article then you are invited to open a case at WP:DELREV. -- intgr [talk] 19:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

imageneeded request

Hi, I was just wondering what exactly you were thing of with the request for an image in Talk:Adjacent? Could you possible add something to the of parameter? Thanks Traveler100 (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

An illustration of what "adjacent" means in geometry. -- intgr [talk] 00:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of off-topic section in Extended precision

As a possible interested editor, please see Talk:Extended precision#Hyperprecision. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Reply. Urvabara (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Finnix

Hello. I appreciate your re-tagging of Finnix {{notability}}. (No, really! I was getting annoyed by the various "drive-by" tagging with no explanation or discussion whatsoever, but your re-tagging actually included a valid justification of why you were doing so.) I have added references to a book published in 2000 (even went to the trouble of finding and buying the first edition of the book), as well as an IEEE Pervasive Computing journal article that advocate Finnix.

I know Finnix is not widely discussed (it's one of those utilities where many people use it, but few mention it), but I believe these references at least form a base for notability. Would you care to re-examine the article, and remove the tag if you are satisfied? Thanks. --Fo0bar (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit in Loadable kernel module

Sorry, the styling changes where done automatically by my monobook-script. My actual edit was to remove the {{fact}}. --Revolus 16:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, which script is that? Is there a consensus now that spaces are preferred between section titles and the "=="? I've been away from Wikipedia for a while. -- intgr [talk] 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is consensus on the German Wikipedia, because the new section link inserts spaces by default. I thought it was consensus on all Wikipedias. I hope so. :-) My script is loaded from de:Benutzer:Revolus/monobook.js (look for wgAction == "edit"). --Revolus 16:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's not; many Wikipedia help/guideline pages are using the no-spaces style in examples. Such as: Wikipedia:MOS#Section management,Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections, Wikipedia:REF#Footnote system and probably more. So I think it's appropriate to respect the style of the original editor (like WP:ENGVAR); please disable the automated refactoring feature of your script on English Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 16:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to disable it as you are the first one who complains. The mentioned guidelines are proposals, not rules. I've been never walking through articles only to change the source code. I've never did invisual changes, but you did. Have a look at the source code of my monobook.js; there are many more beneficial automatic changes. So as sorry as I am, I won't follow you request. Regards, --Revolus 17:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing all titles in every article you touch obfuscates your edits for no benefit (i.e., your edits are harder to review because it is not clear what changes you actually intended to make). In addition to that, you are also overriding the style preferences of the original author. If someone, hypothetically, uses a script that converts space-padded section titles back to the no-space style (which should be allowed by your reasoning), you have a bot war that annoys everyone else.

Situations like these are why English wikipedia has the bot policy:

"Assisted editing covers specifically lower-speed tools and scripts that can assist users to make decisions but leave the actual decision up to the user (see Assisted editing guidelines below)."
"Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired"

If the other functions of your script indeed are useful then you're welcome to keep using those, but please disable this one. -- intgr [talk] 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Stackles Python

Thanks for the help on that article. Alatari (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Brownfield Land

Dear Intgr,

You deleted the link to my blog on brownfields (www.brownfields-development.com). I wish you wouldn't have. Did you read my site? I put a lot of time into creating a resource for people interested in brownfields. There is info about professional organizations, academic programs, a calendar of events, etc. Although there is space for sponsors, there are no sponsors and although there is Google advertising, there are no clicks and no money earned. I would remove the Google advertising but I don't understand how to change code. I had initially hoped the site would be a place for a brownfields community and that I would eventually and indirectly get real estate business as a result of the blog - it's clear now that will not happen but I still want the resource to be available to anyone who is interested. In summary, I didn't include a link to my site because it will help my page rank or because I will earn money. I included a link because I believe my site is an underutilized resource that provides more valuable information than anywhere else for people new to brownfields. My site is not spam. Please reverse your deletion so that people can find my site and benefit from it.

On a different note, I love Wikipedia for learning about stuff but I can't seem to figure out now to navigate the discussion/edit/history sections. I hope I'm doing this correctly and this message reaches the correct person, but if this is breaking protocol somehow, I apologize in advance.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiposter (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about not getting back to you earlier. First of all, the reason why I removed your link was that it was removed by another editor earlier. Please see the Wikipedia external links guideline; under the section "Links normally to be avoided", it says: "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (Admittedly I have no way to verify whether the author is a recognized authority)

Another aspect why Wikipedia editors normally dislike external links is that it can be a slippery slope. Allow one link and it's an invitation for people to add more links; over time it grows to an unmanageable list that's useful to noone; sometimes you get spammers and folks who remove their rival's links and it turns into a battleground.

The preferred alternative is offloading this responsibility to established link directories. The brownfield land article currently only links to "Brownfields Utilization" on Open Directory Project — so why not add your link there? It's not as prominent, but it's fair as far as Wikipedia is concerned. -- intgr [talk] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

MD5 external links

Hey Intgr, I am a little confused as to why you removed the link... You said:

(→External links: If you can't keep it civil then it should just be removed; Wikipedia is not a link farm nor battleground) (undo)

I thought we were being extremely civil; take a look at this exchange:

Hi freezo, I am sorry i am new to wikipedia so excuse me if this isn't the appropriate way to contact you. I am the developer who added hash-it.net to the SHA & MD5 pages. I did this because I believe it is beneficial to the community. The gtools hashing is slow, the hash-it hashing is instant. GTools is nearly an advertisement for their other tools, the md5 portion of the site is miniscule. hash-it.net has no ads, no links, and the UI is fully devoted to hashing. Yes, I made the site, but I have absolutely nothing to gain from people using it. That is why I do not understand you marking it as spam. As far as I can see it is merely an additional resource. Considering there is a heading for "Online Hash Calculators" with only one entry, I would expect you to welcome a new and useful online hash calculator.
Furthermore, may I inquire as to why gtools is on the MD5 page? The hashing site on the SHA page (hash 'em all) seems a much better choice. In my humble opinion hash 'em all and hash-it.net should both be linked to on the MD5 and SHA pages, and gtools should be out. Pages like gtools are a dime a dozen, while hash 'em all is significant because of it's wide support for hashing algorithms and hash-it.net is noteworthy for it's instant hashing.
Again, sorry if this is the wrong method of discussing the issue and I hope you can agree that hash-it.net is more useful than gtools.org for hashing purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.116.86 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize; I should not have called your link spam. To be honest, I didn't actually look at your site before reverting the link — I reverted it because a typical behavior of spammers is to crosspost links to the same page on multiple articles. This kind of "hot button reverting" is a bad habit; it works most of the time, but really must feel like a slap in the face to people who aren't spamming. So, I'm sorry. Actually, I quite like your site: the fast-loading minimalist design and valid (strict!) XHTML are qualities that I as a fellow webmaster can appreciate. I also really like how it automatically gives the calculation, with no silly "submit" button. Feezo (Talk) 21:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it was a bit of a shock, but I can totally see how that would happen. Thanks for the compliments, I'm glad you're someone who can appreciate valid strict XHTML and minimalist design :) And I did test it against '"/?# as mentioned on the sha discussion page, it worked perfectly. So I added the link again, thanks for being so honest and reasonable.

I'm no etiquette expert but that seemed pretty civil to me! I'm not here to start trouble, I just honestly think that it's a worthwhile resource. I have absolutely nothing to gain from this. I don't think you would get the impression we were holding grudges, having personal conflicts, or nurtuting hatred or fear. Anyway, I feel there's simply been a communication breakdown between us so hopefully this will clear everything up.--98.216.116.86 (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I apologise about that. I saw Feezo reverting your change earlier, and also saw you posting your link to other articles, so I immediately assumed that you were one of those spammers edit warring to keep their link. We're pretty impatient with link spammers around here.

Thank you for taking the time to clear this up, I'll be more considerate in the future. I hope we haven't completely scared you away from editing Wikipedia. :) -- intgr [talk] 14:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comment on IDM discussion, it was helpful. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of Palit Microsystems

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Palit Microsystems, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Palit Microsystems is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Palit Microsystems, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Source for value ranges in "Mullard-Philips tube designation"

Hi Intgr, I saw your edits on Mullard-Philips tube designation. Can you help to solve the mystery of this? Do you know a source to check? --BEG (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Comodo logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Comodo logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Neo 1973 and Android (operating system)

The article says that Android has been ported to the Neo, is that enough for the category to stay? ciphergoth (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a third party port that is not supported by either OpenMoko nor Google; I think adding the Android category is just as odd as adding a Linux category to Pocket PC or iPod because there's an iPodLinux project. -- intgr [talk] 05:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Corde broadus

Hi, this page did not meet CSD G1 ^(nonsense). The page was not purely gibberish (e.g. "dsfdsfgf") and some sense could be made of it. It did how ever meet CSD A7 ^{{non notable)} and I have tagged it as such. Please review the CSD (specifically G1). Thank you for your new page work, if you have any questions feel free to ask me :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Methodist High School

Hello Intgr, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Methodist High School has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(+ citation - tag &c.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Categories for "broken" crypto algorithms

[Discussion moved to Category talk:Broken block ciphers#Criteria for the subcategories]

Multi-device support on btrfs

It's not just about spanning devices. Here's an example: let's say I have a big XFS file system on an LV spanning a 4-disk RAID5 array, and I want to add a fifth disk that is larger than the others? I would either have to lose redundancy or waste space. Or, say, I want to retire a disk and drop down to RAID10 over 3 disks? I would have to do a full dump and restore.

There's a big jump in the manageability of a ZFS/Btrfs-like multi-device file system over LVM. It's as big as that of LVM over the linear md driver. That's why I used "crucial". —Nailbiter (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

davfs2

Hi Intgr, awhile back, you copy-edited the davfs2 article. It's now going through an AfD... If you have time could you help with the article? I did some of the latest work trying to improve it, but it may be insufficient to keep it around. Please help if you can/care. Thanks! --Mokhov (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia Constructively

I have recently received an advice note telling me that I am spamming. Whilst the links to my website help I am not stupid enough to try and spam links. How can I do this in an informed manner without misusing this site.

My company has a huge depth of knowledge in the area stated. In particular Data protection act.

All i want to do, is to add to the knowledge on Wkkipedia, but be acknowledged for it.

Please help me resolve this matter!!!

slham1972

I am afraid that the sort of links you're trying to add to Wikipedia are not allowed per our external links guideline. For instance, if it looks like an advertisement for a product or a company, it is simply not welcome on Wikipedia — there is no "constructive way" to add those links. And even for good content, external links are kept at a minimum because long lists benefit nobody. If you would like to contribute to Wikipedia, editing article content is a much better way. -- intgr [talk] 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

List of overweight actors in United States cinema

You edited this article. This is a friendly notice that your input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of overweight actors in United States cinema. This information is provided without any request that you support or oppose the deletion of the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Transmission Control Protocol

What's about going to Transmission Control Protocol and finish your edit? Greetings --Kgfleischmann (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for pointing that out! -- intgr [talk] 12:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: mentby.com spam

Thanks for pointing out the guidelines. I had an oversight that user profiles (originating from mailing lists and forums) were included on the links to avoid. I'm just acting in good faith when I added those links because I'm aware that the links have no SEO-benefit but I thought i'm doing the person of interest a service by linking their content stream. Acjacinto (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. -- intgr [talk] 19:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Command prompt?

Sorry could you explain why you think the article about the Windows Command Prompt should be at "Command prompt (Windows)"? Given that there are no other actual articles with the name "Command Prompt" or "Command prompt", I don't see why.

About the Windows Command Prompt article. I missed that the other night, sorry. It didn't move with the article. I've moved the talk page to the correct place now. You can find it at Talk:Command Prompt.

The talk page at Talk:Command prompt was discussion about the disambig article which is currently at Command prompt so it is in the right place.

I've deleted the Command Prompt (disambig) page and its related talk page. They were just created by me the other night when I was moving things around.

So we have two pages. An article at "Command Prompt" about the actual piece of software and a disambig page at "Command prompt" which links to "Command Prompt" and another article about command-line interpreters in general.

To be honest, given that there is only one real article with a name even close to "command prompt", I'm inclined to redirect "Command prompt" to the "Command Prompt" article and just put a message at the top, along the lines of "For other command-line interpreters please see command-line interpreters."

Hopefully that clears things up a little. Please let me know. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

> Sorry could you explain why you think the article about the Windows Command Prompt should be at "Command prompt (Windows)"?

Because the names "Command prompt" and "Command Prompt" are ambiguous; it's not immediatelly clear that they are different articles. That's where usually disambiguation suffixes are used. There used to be a guideline explicitly discouraging use of upper/lower case for distinguishing articles, but I can't find it now.

> I'm inclined to redirect "Command prompt" to the "Command Prompt" article and just put a message at the top

You're right, that makes the most sense -- I have done it.

(There is also a company called Command Prompt, but there is no article for it) -- intgr [talk] 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ribbon critisism

Why did you restore the critisims section on the Ribbon (computing) article?

The critisism is by non notable people (some disgrunteld former employee and an arbitrary oss programmer). It hold no encyclopedic significance. Wikipedia is not a platform for disgruntled former employees opinions.
The critisism makes up half the article making the article very unbalanced.
Such makes the article not neutral at all with a large negative WP:NPOV burden on it. There is nothing in the article on how wel the ribbon is recieved as a major interface GUI innovation as was reported by many main stream reviewers and newssites. 86.83.239.142 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Such major deletions should always be discussed in advance. Please take this up on Talk:Ribbon (computing), not on my personal talk page. -- intgr [talk] 09:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have reverted twice in 24 hours on the Ribbon (computing) article without providing information that contradicts the original edits made in any way. The edit summary makes very clear that nonnotable unbalancing POV info was removed to which you have not provided any argument on the talk page. Stop reverting back in the POV information in the article. 86.83.239.142 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that there have been tens of people editing this article, even this very section, and none of them has thought of deleting the whole thing outright, I take it that there is an implicit existing consensus for keeping it. The section is well sourced and WP:NPOV actually encourages explaining all different points of view.

If you wish to delete half of the article's content, I think it's not unreasonable to ask you to open up a discussion on the article's talk page. Right now you're only wasting your (and my) time. -- intgr [talk] 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You have continued to revert againt wikipedia policy. Stop this edit warring without giving poper reasons for your actions or refusing to discus the edits on the talk pageo f the article. 86.83.239.142 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice: You've been brought up at ANI: link. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jaikoz

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jaikoz, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaikoz. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added references to Jaikoz to flesh out its notability, but perhaps they are insufficient. If you have an opinion yea or nay, perhaps you will share it at the AfD discussion for Jaikoz. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA

~~I didn't suggest AN/I, I suggested RFC, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)~~

Sorry, my mistake. I see what you meant now. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Intgr! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Jude Johnstone - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-quantum cryptography

Wowzer, thanks for setting up the stub and all the redirects, category links, etc. 24.7.68.35 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody had done it before me :) -- intgr [talk] 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of plaintext-XORs

[Discussion moved to Talk:Disk encryption theory#Stream ciphers in disk encryption]

AfD nomination of List of vaporware

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of vaporware. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vaporware (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dodge copyright violation

This was copied from here -- probably originally a press release written by Chrysler. And even uncopyrighted press releases should not be pasted into articles. --Dbratland (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As my edit summary stated, I was restoring content that was deleted by an IP user without any apparent reason. -- intgr [talk] 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand. They should have given an edit summary. Just pointing out why I got rid of it. --Dbratland (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WebM

Hello, you reverted my edits on WebM article. Please, read the codec article before such reverts. A codec is a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or decoding a digital data stream or signal.

A container format, such as WebM cannot contain a codec. This statement is totally wrong. A container format can contain bitstreams created by an encoder or codec. It cannot contain a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or decoding a digital data stream or signal.

Vorbis is not a codec. Vorbis is an audio compression format and it can be created by different implementations of this format - such as libvorbis and aoTuV.

Please, read the WebM project website: "WebM files consist of video streams compressed with the VP8 video codec and audio streams compressed with the Vorbis audio codec." - http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ - That means, the WebM can contain video bitstream created by an implementation of VP8 (video in VP8 compression format) and audio bitstream created by an implementation of Vorbis format (audio in Vorbis compression format).

Please, read the VP8 article. The VP8 codec was published as libvpx or VP8 codec library. http://www.webmproject.org/code/repository-layout/ , http://code.google.com/p/webm/downloads/list --89.173.66.229 (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You could've just linked me to the Talk:WebM#WebM format cannot consist of software/codecs discussion. It's counterproductive to argue concrete article issues on personal talk pages. In any case, I agree that the current formulation is better than it was before. -- intgr [talk] 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

True crypt deniability

Following up a minor change I put in, Truecrypt only supports a single hidden container per host container, the others systems mentioned allow numerous hidden containers. This means "the guy with the rubber hose" only need beat the person with the container file until they spill the details of that single hidden container (or a dummy hidden container) - at which point the person with the container file can prove there are no more hidden volumes and the beating will stop - so a beating would act as an active incentive to give up any hidden volume. OTOH, anyone with a freeotfe or bestcrypt container knows there's no point in giving up the details of any hidden volume as any beating won't stop. This means the hidden data they stores is more likely to remain secure (there's no incentive to give up the hidden volume's details). This isn't an anti-truecrypt comment, but when protecting data against someone with no respect for human rights, this is a big concern. Cralar (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

[Follow-up at Talk:Deniable encryption#True crypt deniability]

KGDB article and user Linuxmdb

Since you share Linuxmdb's concerns about the article, will you consider removing his section on the talk page and replacing it with a statement of your own? Leaving his comment there may lead some to believe they can discuss the issue with him on the talk page, which is not possible given that the account is blocked as a sockpuppet of a permanently banned user. And to be perfectly clear, I AGF your reversion of my reversion; I do not believe that you are a sock or meatpuppet of the banned user. Like you said, the concern can be valid even if he is banned. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for cleanup: Diskeeper

You cleaned up some POV marketing statements and such from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskeeper several months ago. Recently, more of the same has been added back in, and a potentially relevant and fully sourced section about controversy was removed by an anonymous IP address.

If you could, please revert some of these changes, particularly the loss of an entire section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.30.225 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

McEliece cryptosystem

Hi, the attacks section whose removal you reverted was added by me. The reasons for my removal are the following:

I don't see how such specific attack descriptions should be covered by a general article on the scheme. They do not help at all without suitable background knowledge, which is not provided in the article, and are much better understood by reading the papers (which are referenced).
If these attacks are covered, the multitude of other information-set decoding attacks should be covered as well, which would blow up the article.
Maybe all these attacks can be discussed in a separate article, though I am not convinced.
I commented out rather than deleting because otherwise it would be ultimately lost, so people (like you) can still decide what do do with it.
Most people do nothing but revert, complain, fix vandalism and typos, and don't contribute anything of value. It seems only a matter of time until a completely stop contributing to wikipedia, because you are good when you revert, complain, fix vandalism and typos, and bash people with policies, but you don't count when you invest countless of hours for each single edit that constructively adds material to articles.

Rant end. Nageh (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

After going over this again I have to agree with you, these sections are not very explanatory. The reason why I wanted to retain these attacks was that they are particularly relevant (in contrast to "other information-set decoding attacks") because they're the only ones (as far as I know) that lead to a practical break of the cryptosystem. Merging content from another article and then deleting it in the same breath seemed a little disingenuous. I was not aware that you are the same person as User:Cryptohooligans4life.

#4, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will find this material after it has been commented out, so effectively it's the same as deleted (it's still available in article history)

wrt #5, I just don't see that the rewards of reverting/complaining/typo/vandalism fixing are any greater than writing new content (unless you consider the edit counter a motivator, which it isn't). And those changes certainly have value even if they're easier than writing new content. Wikipedia just wouldn't work if there weren't hordes of people reverting vandalism, copyediting and scrutinizing changes.

In any case I don't see why you're telling me about all that, I tried to rescue content that was being deleted. -- intgr [talk] 21:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I was intending to say that I added the Attacks section in the main article with the intent to provide a clear overview of attack strategies without going into detail, but merged content from that other article to provide the details. Merging and then deleting again was indeed disingenuous, though I think we arrived at an acceptable state. I would still keep the redirect as the (now) deleted text really didn't help in understanding.

Sorry for ranting at you, I'm just a little bit disillusioned by the fact that admins are backing up people who enjoy deleting (not potentially harmful) stuff (sentences or articles) they find unreferenced even when they have not the slightest clue about the topic. C'mon, just look at all those scientific articles with their anonymous contributions, which are mostly correct but usually unattributed. Should we delete all them right away? Anyway... Nageh (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is promoting in wikipedia?

Is it promoting to tell that someone did something first, way before the competitors? The article had claim that hybrid engine technology emerged about 2008, and so on. In the end there was a link to a web page of one database vendor, whose hybrid product was released at that time. I tried to correct the year (back to 2003), and mentioned the company and the product, the addition was removed because it 'promoted' the company. I don't understand why publishing the name of one pioneer (company, which doesn't even exist anymore, and product, which has not been for sale for at least five years) is promoting anything.

Do I promote Xerox if I tell in wikipedia that they first brought mouse into market?

The added statement seemed to suggest that they invented some new technology, whereas I think it's a pretty obvious thing to do, to combine the benefits of two worlds. Xerox, without doubt, did invent something new. Also IBM solidDB, which was referred to in the edit, still very much exists.

If you phrase it like "the first hybrid database was ..." then I think it would be much better. I realize now that you didn't write the "technology emerged ..." part. Do you also know of any references that confirm this? -- intgr [talk] 20:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I should of course wrote Solid Information Technology, which was the name of the company. The reason why I specified the product version is traceability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.197.211 (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary to add reference to common sense statements?

If someone tells that in-memory engines are popular because of short response times or that hybrid engine is good if some data in db benefits from short response times and others need lots of storage space, my opinion is that reference is unnecessary. There is no need to check such a statement (from its original source) neither it is needed to 'reward' anyone from such a common sense thinking.

88.194.197.211 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The claim that "in-memory engines are popular because [...]" isn't common sense — they aren't at all popular. :)

But no, you don't need to cite every little statement. Saying something like "the advantage of in-memory databases is shorter response time" probably doesn't need a citation. -- intgr [talk] 21:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tcpcrypt

The article Tcpcrypt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

slightly wrong logo used on the libvirt page

The logo you added to the libvirt page appears to be missing the text component (its part of the logo).

This is the proper logo:

http://wiki.libvirt.org/page/Image:Libvirt_logo.png

And the SVG source is here:

http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt-publican.git;a=blob_plain;f=en-US/images/image_left.svg;hb=HEAD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.211.103 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I uploaded the right logo now! Somehow I missed this image when searching for the right logo to upload. -- intgr [talk] 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for putting in the time and effort. :) 150.101.211.103 (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi Intgr,

I received your message. I'm trying to understand how this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebORB_Integration_Server is being considered for deletion when the same format and content type was followed based on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_LiveCycle, which appears to be accepted. Mcoderkat (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It's not being considered for deletion for the moment, the tag is saying that it may be listed for deletion in the future, as it doesn't satisfy the general notability guideline.

Note that these tags are advisory only and not applied uniformly to all articles. The lack of cleanup tags does not necessarily indicate that the article is doing something right. -- intgr [talk] 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)