User talk:Samboy/Archive6

GURPS Banestorm, and others

Thanks for your message, and for your edits on some GURPS articles, especially the notices about previous debates. There is no harm done in trying to restore "redirected" articles: it would be even better to add some sources! I live in Italy, so I have no easy access to (paper) game magazines which might feature reviews of these books... Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Super work on Super Audio CD

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		In recognition of your dedication in cleaning up Super Audio CD. Way to go! Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: 209.150.50.65

Will do, thanks for the heads-up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ladder theory

You are correct: the AFD on this article showed that people feel it's sufficiently notable for an article. That was three years ago, but I don't have any reason to believe consensus has changed since then. Thanks for pointing this out; if I'd noticed the AFD myself, I wouldn't have added the notability template to the article. Robofish (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Fuerte-guadalupe-puebla.jpg

File:Fuerte-guadalupe-puebla.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Fuerte-guadalupe-puebla.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Fuerte-guadalupe-puebla.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

MaraDNS

Glad to hear your project is gaining notability. That doesn't however change the fact that as the developer of MaraDNS you shouldn't be editing the article. Right now out of the 94 edits to the article, 34 of them have been made by yourself. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What edits have I made this year (2009) to MaraDNS that violate the WP:COI policy? Please be aware that Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits points out I can be “Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them” and “Deleting content that violates Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy.” Of this six edits I have done this year, one was to remove WP:BLP-violating material and the other five (edit 1 edit 2 edit 3 edit 4 edit 5) were to add citations and did not not change in any way the text of the article, and were done only after they were requested by another editor. I have discussed all of these edits on the talk page and no other editors have disagreed with my edits.

I will add a wikipedian-bio template to the article’s talk page so other editors can be aware of these concerns. Samboy (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

just curious but how do you think that WP:BLP applies to this article? i don't see where the articles mentions your real name. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It’s not exactly a secret I’m the primary developer of MaraDNS; the first hit when you Google my name mentions MaraDNS, not to mention the 5th hit and the 7th hit. Implying that I would just quit working on a project I’ve invested nearly a decade developing reflects poorly on me; it would imply I do not stick to my commitments. I have no problem having the MaraDNS page mentioning my current plans to no longer develop new features after I get MaraDNS 2.0 out the door; just don’t word it like I would leave security bugs unattended. Samboy (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

AES external link

Hello, I noticed that you put a message in my talk page, saying that I have been spamming the page on AES (the Advanced Encryption Standard). This is not true, however. I don't know if it can be considered spam, but I was simply trying to add an external link to my article, which I have written myself, along with the source code. Why is it that my link is not allowed to be placed in the external references? X-N2O (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your concern on your talk page. Samboy (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

you make no sense

on the maradns talk page, you wrote "Since User:Theserialcomma has brought up the legitimate concern that this article doesn’t mention third-party sources discussing MaraDNS’ notability, which would be reasonable grounds for this article being deleted" and on my talk page, you thanked me[[1]]. and then you wrote here [[2]] "I have had an unpleasant experience with the editor User:Theserialcomma." and "I do not believe Theserialcomma made this proposed deletion to help make the Wikipedia a better place, but to attack me." - you wrote these comments about the same situation, which contradict each other.

How could i "attack you" by PRODing an article for deletion because it has no 3rd party sources? you don't own the article. the article isn't about you, even if you are the software developer responsible for the software. the article would be deleted or kept based on its own merits, regardless of how you feel about the nominee. i think that the maradns article has shown marginal notability at this point, since sources were added. when i PROD'd it for deletion, it had no sources to attest to its notability. i did search google for evidence of notability but didn't find anything substantial. you did a much deeper search, since you think you own the article because you wrote the software. but i don't see where the leap to assuming i did anything in bad faith comes in. you said yourself that "Since User:Theserialcomma has brought up the legitimate concern that this article doesn’t mention third-party sources discussing MaraDNS’ notability, which would be reasonable grounds for this article being deleted". Theserialcomma (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your concerns here. Happy holidays! Samboy (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Xconq

Thanks for the kind words! Yeah, the project has pretty much fallen by the wayside - combination of changing circumstances, perhaps-overambitious redesign by others, etc. I've tinkered with a couple other game ideas, nothing has gelled yet - the bar for games is higher than it used to be! I continue to do competitive research by playing WoW a lot. :-) The real truth is that WP sucked up my Xconq time, and continues to do so, as witness the size of commons:Category:Photos_by_Stan_Shebs ... Stan (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

SACD

Thank you!

As an economist, I greatly value efficiency. In terms of Wiki editing, you, as well as the others, are much much more efficient than I am. I will have to keep myself on the sideline. However, whenever I find a good link/source, I will certainly let you know.Iubrecording (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, as I said I've had the article watchlisted for a while and drop by from time to time. I hadn't actually seen the talk-page discussion before I reverted and left Iubrecording a message, so I apologise for butting in (should have checked!) However, all seems to have turned out well, so thank you for your assistance and nice job on the new section :) EyeSerene^talk 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NowCommons

Wikimedia created a commons storage place for free images called Wikimedia Commons and we are in the process of moving free files to commons, once a file has a duplicate on commons we delete the local version WP:MITC.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler

Hi, Samboy. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, a discussion in which you participated, was closed as redirect to Open Watcom Assembler. Open Watcom Assembler has now been nominated for deletion due to notability concerns. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for discussing my user page with me first before tagging it for speedy deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, my frustration looking at your user page is that you seem to be someone who really thrives on conflict. There is precedent for deleting pages which are nothing more than hostile things other editors have said in comments (such as Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Gene_Poole/attackrants, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Gene_Poole/genepooleisevil, and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gene_Poole/genepooleisevil). I think you would work better with other editors you disagree with if you didn’t have a user page that appears to say, essentially, “I like to get in to arguments with other editors”. Samboy (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Es shell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Es shell 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/Es shell 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. Msnicki (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

AsOf parameter in Template:Infobox software

Hello, Samboy.

I had a question. On 30 August 2007, you added an |AsOf= parameter to {{Infobox software}} which is not properly documented yet. If it isn't much trouble, may inquire as to the purpose of this parameter? Thanks.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Answered in User_talk:Codename_Lisa#AsOf_in_Template:Infobox_software Samboy (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In case you pop back in

Sam, I found your edit sum: "OK, I’m out of here. Hopefully I won’t have to come back until 2014. Hopefully. We’ll see.", so I guess it means you aren't likely to discuss anything with me on Talk:Capablanca chess#WP:MOS and Titles? (*Sigh!*) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Mark Overmars Nominated For Deletion

Hello there, I noticed you were in the previous discussion for the deletion of the Mark Overmars article which has since been recreated posing the same issues as before. If you could possibly weigh in on the new discussion it would be appreciated. Thanks. BlitzGreg (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Es (Unix shell)

The article Es (Unix shell) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article was deleted at AfD in January 2011 and has been recreated in substantially the same form, albeit with a few additional sources. Unfortunately, every one of the sources added is either primary (e.g., a man page or article by the author of es) or a trivial mention.

While all constructive 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. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Es (Unix shell) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Es (Unix shell) 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/Es (Unix shell) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Msnicki (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dates on cleanup tag

Hi Sam, Vague cleanup tags are also a pet peeve of mine! So thankyou for giving them more detail. Could I ask that you leave the original date please, instead of updating it to the current date? The reason is it is useful to identify which pages have been needing attention for a long time, so that they can be prioritised. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, let’s keep the tags originally from 2007 remain with a 2007 date. I was split on updating the date when I updated the tag; who knows if the reason I felt it needed cleanup on was the same reason the original tagger had. Samboy (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tricky one. Thanks. 1292simon (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)