User talk:Wrs1864: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:23, 31 August 2007

Please read before commenting here

I will try to post replies on the same talk page that the original post was made.

So if you post here, I will reply here, and if I posted to your talk page, I will monitor it and see any replies you make. I think this makes things less confusing because the conversation doesn't get split across two different pages. If you want me to reply elsewhere, please say so. Thanks Wrs1864 16:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome

Hello, Wrs1864, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. 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! Havok (T/C/c) 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted vandalism on user page

Hi, I blanked the vandalism on your user page. If you want, you can request deletion of your user page using {{db-vandal}} so that the vandalism is not the only thing in the page history. -- Gogo Dodo 04:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add Phishing by Police

Please participate in the discussion, "Add Phishing by Police," before again deleting my entry. It is near the bottom of the discussions page, for Phishing.

Pokey

Funny, I've known him for years and never have seen anything other than Jef. Of course, he's exactly the sort to deliberately confuse people over it, just for sport. Since he's universally known as Jef, the main article should be titled that way if one is ever made. He's interesting enough so that creating one could be fun. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Watch mf page

You do honestly seem concerned about the list of watch manufacturers if a bit too focused on deletion, which is against my preferences, but anyway, take a look at it now. You seem informed enough about the subject to offer some input on where it should go from here. Maybe put some basic criteria at the top. Seriously, it shouldn't be too hard to define something. Might not cover things historically, but we don't have to do that on this page. Though it might be helpful to do so, and that would be something categories could not do effectively. Mister.Manticore 03:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your changes, but only *after* I made my comments in the AfD page. I'm not sure that what you did was as much of an improvement as you may have hoped. I strongly suspect that a significant percentage (most?) of those links are for companies that are not notable and by changing them from being external links to redlines, you have actually made it harder to clean up the page.

I can understand why I appear to be focused on deletion, and you may have a point. My two areas of expertise are spam (see SPF) and watches (Elgin in particular). My knowledge of both areas screams out that this is a spam-magnet that will not be kept clean. I know that I do not have time to do it. The whole horological area of the wikipedia is filled with fanboy type claims and commercial hype to boost the standing of modern watch companies with a large amount of myths and bogus information thrown in. Rolex, for example, is credited with inventing lots of stuff that was actually invented centuries earlier.

I'm afraid that what you have done will likely result in just encouraging these companies to create lots of entries for non-notable companies. Wrs1864 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh, why would I make changes to a page before I saw it? There's hundreds of thousands of pages on Wikipedia, and I must admit, I have no special interest or knowledge in watches. If you hadn't brought it up on AfD, I wouldn't have even thought about it. And I was waiting to see if there was a strong consensus to delete before tackling the edits myself, and removing what I saw as the worst part. But if it will work better for you to fix it from an earlier version, you can easily go back and make your edits there. I won't complain that you've done your reversions from a past version. I really just wanted to clear out the external links to start with, as that was the most immediate problem with the article. You may be right that there are people who will add frivolous entries to this list, but I would say, that's not a reason to delete in and of itself. If it becomes a problem, you can ask an admin to protect the page, or put it on the list of pages asking people to lend a hand watching it. Or stronger warnings at the top. Yes, this list started off a external linkfarm, but since I would say it split from Watch like that, that was a fault of the people who did the split as a copy from the Watches page, not a result of spam-problems. They started off wrong. Anyway, if you find problems with articles, you should bring them up. I don't see any comments by you on the Rolex page, but if they're making false claims, remaining silent isn't the way to fix them. Mister.Manticore 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I said "after I made my comments on the AfD", I meant my most recent comments where I asked if deleting all external links would be acceptable, not my initial AfD listing. Sorry for the confusion. As for doing a lot of work in the watch-related areas, I repeat, I just do not have time. Even cleaning up the one list of watch manufactures I would estimate to likely take hundreds of hours. Seriously. You can't accepted marketing claims that the various companies "make watches" and the important information is too well hidden. Again, I think what you did will probably just make things worse by encouraging the creation of non-notable company pages, but please don't expect me to finish what you started. Wrs1864 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt it'd take hundreds of hours to get the list into a more acceptable shape. Perfect? Maybe, but that's not what you, or anyone else should be aiming for. Set your sights a little lower, just work on what you know. Put in five minutes, and hour, hope another dozen people show up and do the same (though in the cases of watches, I doubt it'll happen). Yes, I understand that at a deep level there may be cases where one company is just rebranding another companies, and that sort of thing is not public, let alone common knowledge. But so what? There are folks who don't know, or care that Sears doesn't make their own equipment. Or Emerson. Or any of a dozen companies. All of that information may be known by someone, but it may not be readily available. Eventually though, Wikipedia should contain that knowledge. Or at least, that's the dream. One person can't do it all though, no matter how much they try. So we hope there's eventually enough to get it right. BTW I doubt all that many company pages will be made. People have to have the incentive to do it first, and in many cases, that won't happen. If there are some, well, that's no worse than Wikipedia gets every single day. But if you are truly worried about it, be bold and revert. I doubt it's any better, but you never know. Mister.Manticore 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on your spam edit

Not sure if the "anit-spam kook" comment was sent my way or not... regardless, knock it off. Please see WP:NPA, no personal attacks if this is confusing for you. Sethie 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, it wasn't intended to be sent your way or to be a personal attack. It was supposed to be humor and was basically a direct quote from one of the references that was given: [1]. I'm going to post this to both of our talk pages to make sure it is clear. If I could edit the history comment, I would. Again, sorry, it was intended as a humor. Wrs1864 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wayne!

Thanks for your welcome! JeffGent 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REvision of page "Internet"

please discuss revisions of accurate information on talk page before blindly assuming you are correct --Rebent 14:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... strange that you think you are correct and therefore assume that you can make the changes. I have put a comment on the talk page though. Wrs1864 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC 1149

the problem is there was no discussion on RFC 1149 unless you can show me one. Cocoaguy_contribs^talk 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is listed in with the other RFCs, all 104 of them. see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#December_21. Wrs1864 04:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris's Lament

My condolences on your recent loss. -- Jeff G. 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harris's lament still exists, the capitalized version needs a redirect, and possibly Harris' Lament also. I'm not going to add them until after the prod gets decided though. Thanks for all your work on it. The WSJ article is a nice touch. Wrs1864 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the title of this section is NOT the page we were working on at Harris's Lament. Never mind. -- Jeff G. 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hostname

Hi, I see that you're still editing Hostname, so I'm not going to touch it right now. Please consider adding a Scarcity link to the "See also" section of Hostname, given my recent changes to Scarcity. Thanks! -- Jeff G. 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. Wrs1864 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Domain name

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Wrs1864! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your talk page, and I will make followups there if you respond there. Wrs1864 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot +example.com

Shadowbot actually has a built-in safety check that will stop it from reverting if it detects that it has edited that article within the last two edits. This basically means that if you revert Shadowbot's reversion, it will leave you alone. Shadow1 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: constructive and substantial edits in the recent times

Wrs1864: thanks you for your recent edits[2] to Application-level gateway. I followed other edits you have done lately related to networking domain. Pleased to see some constructive and substantial edits in the recent times. Raanoo 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've been trying to clean up the whole IETF RFC stuff for a while now, and I think I am almost done. *whew*! It all started with cleaning up one link, and I kept finding more stuff to fix. Wrs1864 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rDNS

Actually no, sir. You removed the wrong sentence. According to RFC1912 an IP-address can only resolve into ONE hostname (which is logical, since otherwise it wouldn't be resolving to a name at all). That was exactly my point: The RFC is this strict because it assures auth options, like whitelisting and such. Since only one name can resolve out of each IP-address, and unique IPv4 addresses are hard to come by these days, there is no way to keep combining the two. My statement was entirely correct, so I will reverse your stupid changes. 194.109.22.149 03:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Uh, I'm sorry, but I can find no where in RFC 1912 that says that there can be only one PTR record. I can also find documentation from the IETF that there can be multiple PTR records. Please document your claim that there can't be multiple PTR records. Wrs1864 13:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wrs1864 on this point. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

internet marketing mess

I left you a message at my talk page. Cheers --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

host names vs. domain names

Hi Wayne, I feel that your edits to the DNS and hostname articles, while technically accurate, make these articles harder to understand. Particularly so, because your definition of "hostname" appears to partially contradict this definition and Wikipedia's own definition at hostname; you appear to define hostname as a type of FQDN. I have attempted to clarify what I think you meant. Please review my explanatory edit and correct it if necessary. Also, given that most users apparently define "host name" different than you, and given that this is Wikipedia (which has a popularity bias), I wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to yield and restate your point about the naming restrictions in a way that is not likely to cause confusion as per the above? I may not reply (timely), but in any case I would ask you if you could do a short edit of User talk:86.56.48.12 once you have responded here. (That would alert me to your response.) Thank you. 86.56.48.12 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need to stop people abusing SMTP standards.

I have host several email domains, via a common SMTP firewall, this system has no knowledge of user names behind it? So the Fake Bounce method has no meaning, the Firewall could say OK to anything, but our basic policy is to refuse bounces due to most being BOGUS! Only a few known hosts are allowed to bounce! We feel rather than you promoting SPAM you should fight against it!

So signal that FAKE BOUNCES are not a good idea, and make system mail administration people the world over happy people!

Our module that deals with SPAM is a CPAN module, not at this date ready! even though we have withdrawn our commercial product, as we feel that effective SPAM protection should be available to all for FREE.

anti-spam@celmorlauren.com