User talk:Chealer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chealer. 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.

RedHat is not a free software company anymore, they ignore the OSI decisions and have an internal instruction not to use CDDL code. They do not comment why, so it is impossible to find the reason.

SuSe developers seem to believe that they need to add bugs to cdrecord making it unusable for the "convenience" of their users.

One of the Mandriva developers reverse Engineered cdrecord-ProDVD in 2001 and created a bad DVD "enhancement patch". Mandriva seems to have problems with the correctly working DVD support in the original.

With this kind of Linux distributions users are second class citizens in obscure political games run by very few eople from the distributors. The users are not aked whether they prefer a working maintained and free original before cdrkit. Interesting: people from the same distributors who are not involved in the game do not uderstand why their companies did drop the maintained original free software and know that during the 8 months cdrkit did exist only self created bugs have been fixed to pretend activities.

Wikipedia should not become an attendent in this game and wiki should not quote "self verified" claims from people who started a dispute.

I can't see what political games you're referring to. But more importantly, I don't understand which clarifications you want.--Chealer 02:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You claim that clarification is needed for facts that are well known or easy to prove.

Ah, I see what you meant. It's not a clarification that is needed, but a citation (source).--Chealer 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Playing political games in our case is creating bad software on the shoulders of the users that can no longer easily use maintained free and working original software.

I don't understand what you mean.--Chealer 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that there are license issues but never verifying this is also playing political games.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.--Chealer 03:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If wikipedia becomes an actor in this game and if wikipedia is not neutral (by quoting unproven claims from the initiators of a dispute), wikipedia loses credibility. Make sure that wikipedia does not loose neutrality.

is no longer

Thanks for alerting me to your action. If you feel it has no place in the article, I won't contest your opinion. —Vespristiano 03:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, the /releases/ web page is only named as such, its text clearly states "The “testing” distribution contains..." (emphasis mine). Actually I think I wrote that. I'm a Debian developer who had long been the main editor of the English part of the web site. Maybe it needs fixing nowadays, but what I wrote in testing (Debian) is accurate because that's how things are in practice. Debian tests the new distribution to become a release - it is not "a release" like 'stable' is. In fact, heavens forbid that anyone would treat it as a release - Debian had to miss version 1.0 because a vendor treated one such test version as a 1.0 release, and screwed it up. --Joy [shallot] 08:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should complain at debian-www about this conflation of terms WRT "release". As for the word "distribution", it is fairly consistently used in two ways: one is to refer to the whole software produced by Debian, and the other is to refer to individual pieces such as "testing" or "stable" or "unstable". --Joy [shallot] 17:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't make sections like that. Old discusssions should be archived, not put at the bottom of a page. New comments go at the bottom and anything else is cofusing for the readers. pschemp | talk 22:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Samsara apparently felt the same and did the job. I've added some sections and adapted the description.--Chealer 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort, but things have to stay in chronological order when archived, you can't just pick and choose parts and move them, it messes up the GFDL and makes the conversations hard to follow. In the future please, if you don't kno whow to archive correctly, let someone else do it. That particular talk page is not excessive in length and was fine before you moved stuff. Just let it be please. pschemp | talk 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. #wikipedia told me that would have to wait for mediawiki 2.0 and LiquidThreads... anyway, if you know better than them, I'd appreciate to know how to archive correctly. The page was actually considered as having a problematic length by mediawiki. As for "messing up the GFDL", remember we're talking about Talk pages ;)--Chealer 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"may be problematic" doesn't mean it is. plenty of article and talk pages have that notice, its really fine if they are like that. pschemp | talk 04:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say that ""may be problematic" doesn't mean it is", but anyway the reason I want to eliminate/hide/mark old discussions is to help editors, not to satisfy mediawiki. The less there is, the faster it will be to see if an issue was already raised or not. If you can't tell me how to do it cleanly, I'll just drop it.--Chealer 04:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I did tell you how to do it clearly. They go in an archive, in CHRONOLOGICAL order in an exact copy of the way they were written. Nothing is pulled out of it original order. If you put a section in, all the sections above it, in order, have to go with it. And that particular talk page is just fine, so please just leave it. pschemp | talk 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, except that doesn't allow to mark any dead discussion as dead, but only those so old that all older discussions are dead. Thanks anyway.--Chealer 19:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. But that is the way its set up now, so that's what we do. The software is not configured for anything better. pschemp | talk 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're wrong. Both are terminal emulators, and whilst they do not share the codebase, they have similar features. I've therefor restored the link in question. vidarlo 13:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So, according to you Eterm are xterm have more similar features than xterm and most others terminal emulators?--Chealer 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they do not, but they are similar, and someone interested in xterm might be interested in eterm, and thus we should have that link. However, I'm not gonna revert another time, for it is not a big matter. But generally, wiki-links is a Good Thing(TM). vidarlo 14:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just a general statement. Links can be superfluous as any other content. In this case the page already links to terminal emulator, so there's no need to link to each of them.--Chealer 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's generally considered polite to discuss changes if you're re-reverting edits from established users.

"estanblished users"? Heh

There's nothing wrong with the September 7 2006 date format, and it reads better for unregistered users than the ISO one does.

How do you know?

Complicated links should be reserved for places where the target is ambiguous; if a redirect goes straight to the target site then it's best keeping the link simple.

How do you know?

It's policy. wikipedia:piped links.

And where does that page say that?

Your recent reverts smack of pettiness. Chris Cunningham 09:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering yours, I fail to feel much remorse.--Chealer 18:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think so. Regardless, there's no reason we need to trod on each others' toes over this. WP:DBAD. Chris Cunningham 19:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree...hopefully you understand the reciprocity this implies. Regarding the reference to DBAD, I'd point you to meta:Don't be a dick.--Chealer 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you removing links to the comparison of linux distros and live distro articles? If nothing links to them then they will be orphaned. They are relevant to all the distro articles are they not?-Localzuk ^(talk) 11:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of Linux distributions is linked from Linux distribution. It is a basically useless page, so there is no need to link to it directly. With the link from Linux distribution, there is no chance that it is orphaned.--Chealer 18:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Pages should strive to be linked to by more than just one page.

How do you know? That depends on the case.

Just because you think it is a useless page doesn't mean it is so.

I said it was basically useless. It can be useful in some cases. However, I stopped trying to maintain that page myself and am well aware that it is of low quality.

Please stop removing it as it is relevant to distribution articles.

I won't. The fact that it is relevant doesn't mean it has to be directly linked.

If you think it is useless, I suggest you take it to WP:AFD.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I didn't state that it was useless. Removing links to pages to be deleted is a first step anyway.--Chealer 20:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly.

I won't refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly if these people repeatedly undo my edits mistakenly.

If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

I won't be blocked from editing Wikipedia, since I never violated 3RR. I know what 3RR is, thank you anyway. Considering that some of the revertions I did were reverting 3RR violations, I consider your comment as an involuntary joke.

It's clear you're blindly reverting to some old version of yours, not even taking into account issues that had appeared settled, edits made by others since whatever version you're using, or any developments in the Talk discussions. DMacks

Clear for whom? Certainly not for me.--Chealer 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to be the mediator for the Advanced Packaging Tool MedCab case. Could I request that you discontinue the edit war to allow the mediation process to commence. Thanks, Addhoc 12:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for volunteering, despite the triviality.--Chealer 19:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that we're in mediation for this article, please use that process instead of making large-scale edits similar to the one that got us into mediation the first place. DMacks 16:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do that unless you clarify what you're talking about.--Chealer 00:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I just looked back at the history, and the changes that look familiar as triggering my comment are now dated a week or two ago. Database and/or serious brain glitch. Sorry for the time-lapse or mental screw-up. DMacks 02:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed a bunch of talk page commentary from Linus' article. While you did make the talk page much easier to follow and use, it is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia to remove the comments (however silly) of others from article talk pages. What one can do is "refactor", which generally involves creating an archive page (usually Talk:Article/Archive1, etc), and moving the comments to that page. Please don't misunderstand me -- I didn't revert your changes, and it is clear that your intentions are good. Best, -- Gnetwerker 18:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't recall where I got the original image from, but many Beatles singles were reissued in the UK in the 1970s, so it's quite possible that that was the cover used. In any case, the second image is the original 1964 release, if I'm not mistaken, so it's best to go with that. Johnleemk | Talk 05:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chealer,

...revert name change. there was no ambiguity

I included the adjectival "open-source" as there's no indication otherwise as to what kind of "Dictators" the article addresses; "Benevolent Dictator for Life" can suggest the kind of title an egotistical country's leader might give (or have given to) themselves...?   Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hum, I realize I involuntarily removed a link to BDFL when changing the page description. I can't imagine someone would go to List of BDFLs without going to BDFL first, but anyway, I just re-added the link. I think the ambiguity should be fixed now.--Chealer 17:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine someone would go to List of BDFLs without going to BDFL first...

I agree and can't recall how I arrived at the page without passing by BDFL or an open source-related article first!  But that's what happened somehow and what prompted my edit. Anyway, yes, it should be fine; thanks for understanding my experience. Yours, David (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Intriguing list for a non-specialist computer user!

Hi, i noticed your were editing a page about knoppix linux, i would like to try that linux out but i dont know a good place to download it in english. If you could link me to a page that would be great.

Hi. I don't use Knoppix anymore, so I suggest you ask #knoppix on irc.freenode.net.--Chealer 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

hi! you've edited the sidux-page over again, referring to missing sources,striked it as an advert and that it's not under the gpl!the artikel has been worked over several times now, where do you see the advertising, where do you see the gpl bit and maybe you noticed, it has a future software tag, so it is clear, that the page is going to change soon anyway! what manual are you talking about this time? lots of questions, that i would like to get answered! and please excuse the lingo, i'm not english! :-) tania

I don't see a gpl bit, as I've removed it in my edit. There is no more future software tag. The manual I was talking about is the one I removed the link to. I replied about the advertising on the Talk page.--Chealer 18:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

i just put the future software tag back, cause it is a preview, the final will be released next week! ok, i just checked, it runs under gpl, mpl, bsd and public domain, so various should be ok!;) and why remove the manual link, as that was the only manual-link in there? the article is gonna get changed once again, cause the person, who rewrote it put some stuff in there, which is not relevant anymore! and what is that about missing sources? there has always been a link to the offical sidux-page, that being the source? sorry for asking, i've read the style and help pages, but being new to editing in wiki, some stuff is not so easy to catch up! --84.135.205.100 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article already links to the Sidux website, which directly links to the manual. So there is no point in linking directly to the manual. For the sources, having the sidux website in External links doesn't imply that it's a reference. If Sidux's website is a reference, it could be added to the References section.--Chealer 22:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chealer, could you please explain on the Talk:Sidux-page, which parts of the article need a cleanup? Thank you, --77.181.92.161 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Chealer 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the reference to the FSF page consitute an endorsement? Reading the page in question shows that interviews with the creators of gNewSense can be arranged via the FSF, which certainly looks like an endorsement. As a friend of Paul O'Malley, I know that the FSF is supporting them financially - he's told me so himself. Autarch 12:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Mako brought the topic to Talk.--Chealer 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clearing that up. Autarch 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 12 hours for violating Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on the article Stanislav Petrov. If you have questions about this policy, see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Your talk page (here) remains unblocked, and if you have questions or complaints about this enforcement, you can post them here. If you feel this block is unwarranted, you can follow the instructions in Category:Requests for unblock (which essentially consists of placing a tag on this page) and request an unblock. I am not entirely opposed to lifting the block myself, but it is imported that the seriousness of Wikipedia:Edit wars is made clear. Maury 12:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sigh I have removed the block. I noticed that the edit was longer ago than the block timer. So consider this a belated warning instead. Maury 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm already aware of the 3RR rule. Anyway, no problem.--Chealer 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, in 133354865 you added a note "udev transition" about Debian 4.0. What does this mean?--Chealer 03:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Transition from the static /dev directory to the dynamic one, populated by udev. It was the most complicated system-wide transition in Debian since the switch from libc5 to glibc. · Naive cynic · 15:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but then why did you add this in the notes about Debian 4 rather than those about 3.1?--Chealer 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it etch that made udev the default? · Naive cynic · 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

From the history of our page at Wikipedia I understand that you have nominated us for deletion. Several project members (Theforkofjustice, dhalgren_4_lfc and myself) have given our reaction in -- what we hope to be -- the appropriate page.

Basically I have two questions for you:

• Have you read our comments? And if so, did they clarify things for you or do you need additional information?

  Yes. I don't need any additional information.

• Since you have marked us for deletion, can you also unmark us for deletion? And if so, are you willing to do so?

  Apparently, no.--Chealer 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

TIA and kind regards, Useresa

To answer one question asked in the AfD, what Linux For Clinics should do to keep a presence on Wikipedia is to become notable. One obvious first step to do that for any product is to get a website or homepage.--Chealer 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. We used to have a homepage and forums running but due to the fact that these were constantly being hacked (if you like details I am willing to elaborate on this via email). Therefore we have decided, since this was seriously stopping progress, to focus on development of our next release and make use of our registrations at SourceForge, Launchpad and our Wikipedia page as main communication channels. We hope you can understand this situation and are willing to reconsider and remove the "marked for deletion" status. Regards Useresa

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a communication channel intended to replace insecure websites. I do not intend to revoke my nomination.--Chealer 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you are systematically nominating a number of the lessor articles on linux distributions for deletion. This is a noble, thankless task to be sure; thanks for this service. This is to request that when you make your nominations you also include a better description as to why - specifically what "notable" means and why the article does not demonstrate it. I have in mind just a 1-2 sentence blurb that you cut and paste in at nomination time to give others a bit more guidance about what that means, what "notable" means, and how to demonstrate "notable", etc. Not all of us are well versed in such things, and a bit of assistance in understanding Wikipedia policy and how best to respond would be helpful. (About half of the discussion at OpenPsion was some of us (me in particular) thrashing around until we realized what was required.) You might also state that your action is part of the systematic review you are doing. I note also that Wikipedia guidelines suggest trying other milder approaches first (correct article, merge with other articles) before nominating for deletion. I think I understand the task you are undertaking, however, which may not be amenable to the slower approach. Thanks, Bdushaw 02:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree in that an improved nomination statement would be appropriate. My suggestion is something on the lines of: "As part of my review of the Linux distributions with articles on Wikipedia, I'm nominated this page for deletion because it doesn't meet the standards at WP:CORP by providing significant coverage in third-party sources." Most of the distros seem to have not attracted much attention, but this might help forestall some needless wrangling. But good job for taking on this task! Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 02:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comments come a bit too late since I think I'm done with this broad review now. But I retain the suggestion to link to WP:CORP if I do more nominations. Bdushaw, the approach to correct the article is not useful when the issue is notability. There's nothing that can be done to the article that will increase the topic's notability. Thanks for your appreciation, FrozenPurpleCube.--Chealer 18:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, William A. Stein, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Stein. Thank you. -- mms 00:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I'm really impressed by your ability to do such a laborious tasks like reorganizing a giant list like that, which most people (myself included, I must admit.) would just leave in a state of disrepair. Your edits are appreciated, keep up the good work! Lucid 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This is appreciated, though I don't promise to finish the work :( It's a bit strange to be awarded a barnstar by a 16 years old. At your age I was just starting to do useful stuff. Keep up your good work.--Chealer 04:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, now that we're kinfolk, can I borrow $20? ColdFusion650 11:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure...you're just talking about Canadian dollars, right? :) Wait...the CAD is catching up. I'm not sure anymore :P --Chealer 15:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for the parentheses. Lots of people call it the "Cell microprocessor". How is that an inappropriate name for the article? The parentheses seem stupid to me, but I don't care that much, so have it your way. —Keenan Pepper 03:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but there are also lots of people who call it differently. The idea is simply to use the canonical name. Note that people writing "Cell microprocessor" doesn't mean they consider that the name is "Cell microprocessor". A large part of the hits are people disambiguating, but there are indeed several that call it "Cell Microprocessor". It just seems it's not the canonical name. Please don't think I'm "having my way". I looked quickly and it seemed to me that "Cell" was the canonical name. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, and would appreciate to be told.--Chealer 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yo Chealer. Je savais bien que j'allais te wiki-croiser à force d'éditer des articles de free software. Va commenter sur un AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of software in dyne:bolic. -- Kl4m ^{Talk Contrib} 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Y0 Kl4m. Fait.--Chealer 09:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your message before. I was utterly mistaken about the copyvio - I could have sworn I saw a GFDL notice in their documentation but I don't see it now. I removed the offending text and also trimmed the marketing fluff out of the article. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 05:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Chealer 05:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do you have any evidence for this? The content seems to come from [1] but I see no mention of the GFDL there.--Chealer 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no recollection of any edits to Stanislav Petrov; it was over three years ago, and I have no documentation concerning it. It was probably something I did during recent changes patrol, but it makes no sense to me now, and, without documentation, we certainly can't claim that text is licensed under the GFDL, especially after this edit. - Sethant 01:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Chealer 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't blank a page with a copyvio notice based on a three year old revision. If you'd like the revision deleted from the logs that's fine, but do your best to not disrupt the entire article. Keegan^talk 06:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but copyright for this kind of works last over 10 years in most countries, and Wikipedia respects at least this duration.--Chealer (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that revisions that are direct copyright violations can be wiped from the logs. The current revision of the article is not a copyright violation even if there once was in the past. The article is completely reworded- the owners of the original copyright do not have a claim against the current article (which is properly sourced by the way). The entire article and its history do not merit deletion as copyright violations because of an old revision. Keegan^talk 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's suppose you're right; from which revision is the article completely reworded?--Chealer (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, unless there is a particular concern that the preservation in the history of a copyvio revision will tend to promote the reintroduction of copyvio, we don't, except upon the receipt of a request from the copyright holder, delete copyvio revisions from page histories, and so not only, as Keegan observes, might one have done well not, in view of the instant version's differing decidedly from the copyvio version(s) and from the source the infringement of the copyright of which was suspected, to tag the article as {{copyvio}}, but so too would he/she, where not the holder of copyright of the putatively infringed content, have wanted to refrain from applying the tag solely to raise concerns about the preservation in the history of copyvio revisions. Joe 18:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was acting with my admin hat on. I reviewed the history, I believe that the current version is now substantially different from the violation's entry, and I removed the violation from the visible log so now the article, as it begins, reads nothing like the website's piece. Happy editing to you, Chealer. Keegan^talk 19:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi I got the GFDL from the copyright holder, and placed appropriate information on the talk page for Alpine Linux and sent email.

Please remove the copyright violation notice.

--thanks Mikeb0515 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll let an admin remove the notice, since I didn't receive the email with permission and I'm not sure I'm technically allowed to remove it.--Chealer 05:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RC1+ is a release from code that’s newer than RC1, but before RC2 gets released. The latest openSUSE live CD with KDE is based on code from Nov. 29. As it’s not an official release, it’s correct that you reverted the modification. I just wanted to explain RC1+ :) --KAMiKAZOW 20:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have converted the PROD for EHUX to an RfD because of two reasons: a) WP:PROD should not be used for redirects (a minor point) and b) deleting redirects of this kind under the circumstances encountered could be ... complication-inducing. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 31 for an explanation of what I mean. Regards User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Jollix, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure how to reply to your question which appeared in the corresponding location in my personal page. You asked about the source of my addition to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patent&diff=119871821&oldid=119740252 about recipe privileges akin to patents in Greece. Unfortunately, that was almost a year ago, and I don't remember the exact source or sources. I have checked the books that I finished reading around that time, and none of them seem likely to have been the source. I'm pretty sure it was related to some research I was doing at work, but that looks like a case where some of the sources I found on the Web seemed to complete the meaning of the original very weak wording in Wikipedia. Though IP is not my primary responsibility, I'm sometimes asked to provide information to people who are dealing with the legal staff elsewhere in the company, and IP issues are common. However, at this time I am unable to say more. Shanen (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Ark Linux, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ark Linux and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nerolinux3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Ulteo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor has nominated Ulteo, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I don't understand the necessity behind some of your edits to the Fedora page. The removal of the IRC and forum links seems unnecessary to me. Also, why does the statement about upstream edits require another citation - isn't the citation from the Fedora Project Leader suitable enough? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the links was unnecessary, but their addition was also unnecessary. The citation from the Fedora Project Leader is a primary source. Promotional statements should not rely only on primary sources.--Chealer (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see an insufficent notability post on the page of the SFS Technology. As described, the SFS Technology is published in magazines and (in Italian) in most site. Times ago I have talked with others users about how to make a good Wikipedia's page and about its notability. I think that there aren't motivations to propose a deletion of a page that likes good. Best Regards Vincnezo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincenzodentamaro (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here, it appears that Jörg Schilling removed your edit regarding the heirloom Bourne shell. In retrospect, does that look like advertising to you? Tedickey (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My edit was only to move the external link to its associated paragraph, so it was a "cosmetic" edit. I never heard about Heirloom except on that page, but I am not a shell expert, so I can't say whether mentioning Heirloom is advertising.--Chealer (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor I (trying to be neutral). Jörg removed it shortly after I removed his edit to advertise his program. Tedickey (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Chealer. 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.