User talk:AlistairMcMillan/Archive13

Orphaned non-free image (File:Apple Safari.png)

You've uploaded File:Apple Safari.png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added an external link to Apple Dock

Comments transferred to Talk:Dock (Mac OS X).

Canspam

Thanks for your bold edit at desktop virtualization. I only wish I had thought to do it sooner. jæs (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your deletion of my content on Hungerford massacre

I am sorry. I did not realize it was a possible copyright violation. I am still a relatively new editor, and am not familier with all of Wikipedia's policies yet. Thank you for undoing my changes. Sentient Planet (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe newell

Why would you threaten my account for that edit?It wasent vandalism since when does wikipedia not allow us to mention critisim?You are biast.254Jackson (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of EEye Digital Security for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article EEye Digital Security 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EEye Digital Security 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. Mifter (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your deletion of Secure64 DNS products

On October 16, 2010 you removed references to Secure64 DNS from the list of DNS server software. The comment was "removing spam".

The introduction to this section says that this is a list of independent implementations of the DNS protocols. In fact, some years ago, all appliance products that repackaged BIND (typically with a management GUI wrapped around it) were eliminated from the matrix. However, Secure64's products remained on the list because they were considered to be unique from other DNS implementations. One of the editors was quite familiar with Secure64's products and made that determination at the time.

The uniqueness comes from two places: first, although we have leveraged some open source code in our implementations, we have written major portions from scratch. The resolver in our Secure64 DNS Cache product, for example, was written from scratch by Secure64. This makes it unique from all other products listed. The second source of uniqueness is that our products run on our own operating system, also written completely from scratch by Secure64. This gives each of our products uniqueness at the OS layer from all other implementations.

I would like to put back references to Secure64 DNS Authority and Secure64 DNS Cache (we made a naming change to our products when we introduced our DNS Cache product back in late 2010) into the matrix, but don't want to get into a back and forth editing situation with you or any other editor, so I am reaching out to you in advance. Please let me know your thoughts.

P.S. I do work for Secure64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.98.164 (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secureinco (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the referral to the COI page. I was somewhat aware of this, but have taken the time to refresh my memory by rereading it.

If your point is that I have a potential COI with this page, I have to agree, as we are a commercial vendor. At a minimum, I need to add this information to my own profile page (I will work on this next).

The next obvious question is whether the information I posted to this page belongs here or not. I think there are two questions to answer on this subject: 1. Do the Secure64 products meet the criteria to be included on this page. My previous post outlined why I believe they do belong there, and it passed the scrutiny of other editors when originally posted. The second question is whether the information posted represents a neutral point of view or not. I made every attempt when I originally posted this to work with other editors to make sure it represented a neutral point of view. However, there is very little content about each product except for a one sentence description and a row in the feature comparison table.

I realize now that Wikipedia strongly discourages editors with a COI to post content because of the inherent difficulty in maintaining a neutral point of view. My intent is not to deceive or break the rules. I would appreciate your feedback on how this situation should be handled, as I still believe that the information on our products belongs on this page.

Secureinco (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

63.225.98.164 (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Rotational delay

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rotational delay, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebSocket

You: "It is definitely not supposed to be a venue for people to advertise their newborn half-implemented projects."

How do you know when a WS implementation is immature? Did you check all? Who's judging?

COI: I am author of a WS test suite used in a couple of projects. The test suite has no inherent interest other than verifying the conformance of implementations. The test suite would not be used by others if it wasn't "neutral". I have started the "Comparisons WS" page, and contacted every single implementation author by email about the "feature status" before setting the page public to get consensus. Meanwhile, a couple of other guys have added their stuff.

Where is the COI you claim I have? This talk of COI seems to suggest that I deliberately published false information to back "my interests". Obviously, I cannot let this false claim stand as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberstet (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of WebSocket Implementations

You have edited above page critizing that it "needs additional citations" and "references from independent authors and third-party publications".

I fail to see how the page is different from i.e. Comparison_of_TLS_Implementations. The latter contains an overwhelming amount of information with nearly all (or all?) references being links to the project pages and RFCs.

Then you have removed the list of implementations. How are people encouraged to include the stuff into the comparison table, when they even don't know / see what implementations are still missing in the former? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberstet (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet editing

There is an open WP:SPI case looking at sockpuppet editing primarily on the Johann Hari/ Talk page. As you edited the Johann Hari/Talk page between 2004 and 2011, your input is welcomed.

Jesus phone

Is there any particular reason you felt it appropriate to over-ride the conclusion reached at the previous deletion discussion, and remove this with no prior debate whatsoever? Crispmuncher (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Your opinions do not alter that there is an established consensus in favour of retention. If you can't see that I'll take it to DRV now. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion review for Jesus phone

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jesus phone. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the restore. Can you do the talk page too please? ISTR there is some useful discussion there. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed deletion of Intellext Watson

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

Non-notable software.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Office 2008.png

Hello, AlistairMcMillan

I saw this edit of yours and I am afraid I reverted it because although you are technically right and the image is not fair use, the image is still non-free and Non-free content criteria policy applies to all non-free images.

However, I also understand that the guy who wrote the template had also made a mistake with both the name ({{orphaned fair use revisions}}) and the wording. So, I fixed the wording and renamed the template. It is now called {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}.

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]