User talk:JamusDoore
March 2015
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to CryptoLocker, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
What about the various parts that did contain citation? Those were removed, as well, when they had "reliable, published sources". JamusDoore (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- We do not allow synthesis of reliable sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources: it violated NOR because it contained more specific details than what were supplied in the source given. Additionally, the part that is true original research was the Megacode part. Additionally, it was removed because it strayed way too far from the original topic of the article (which was supposed to be about a defunct malware strain, not an entire class of malware). ViperSnake151 Talk 16:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I certainly agree about the Megacode and have no argument there; that was my work and hasn't really been published anywhere, so I'm fine with that being removed (though I weep for having wasted my time writing that :-P ). The rest of the stuff, though, about CryptoWall and other copycats, though wasn't. Megacode is a Cryptowall copycat (even the decrypt instruction file was a clear copy/paste job), so maybe a bit there about it? Or maybe not. I did ask on the Talk page as to whether or not CryptoWall should be its own article, though; my thoughts are that it is now well beyond just being a copycat. JamusDoore (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think I may give CryptoLocker.F its own article. It's become notable in its own right. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I know that I would agree with and support such a move :-) Thanks for the discussion and have fun. JamusDoore (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think I may give CryptoLocker.F its own article. It's become notable in its own right. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I certainly agree about the Megacode and have no argument there; that was my work and hasn't really been published anywhere, so I'm fine with that being removed (though I weep for having wasted my time writing that :-P ). The rest of the stuff, though, about CryptoWall and other copycats, though wasn't. Megacode is a Cryptowall copycat (even the decrypt instruction file was a clear copy/paste job), so maybe a bit there about it? Or maybe not. I did ask on the Talk page as to whether or not CryptoWall should be its own article, though; my thoughts are that it is now well beyond just being a copycat. JamusDoore (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Hi there! JamusDoore,
you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) |
Co-op mentorship
[edit]Hello JamusDoore, welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Co-op. You asked about Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and original research. Do you still have questions about the edits you made to CryptoLocker, or are you asking for more general advice? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of International Kwanmukan
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on International Kwanmukan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)