User talk:A-Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] List of computer viruses deletion vote notice

Please help the List_of_computer_viruses stay alive! You seem to have a heavily vested interest in this article. A-Day 23:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you! A-Day 04:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate you taking the time to cast your second vote. I'll never bother you again. Thank you, A-Day 22:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh you are not bothering me, feel free to inform me of such votes, my comments were directed at the nominator... :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey hey! I'm glad there are no hard feelings. On the bright side, the nominator has to be doing a good job editting articles. A-Day 00:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, voting knowlege for deletion is something frowned upon by the masses here on wikipedia ^-^' --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of trojan horses deletion vote notice

Thanks for your vote for the list of computer viruses. Please consider voting similarly for the list of trojan horses as well. Thank you - A-Day 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help! A-Day 00:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem! It boggles the mind to see people trying to delete such useful lists. --Revolución (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. In my opinion, the nominator contributes well, just had some poor judgment with these nomintations. A-Day 01:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote for the list of computer viruses. Please consider voting similarly for the list of trojan horses as well. Thank you - A-Day 01:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your help! A-Day 01:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem. I am unfamiliar with the method of posting to user comment pages... but thanks for alerting me to that other article. Such lists are the collaberative effort of many wikipedians and is what Wikipedia is all about. To suggest their deletion is outrageous. --Christopher 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, putting the list up for deletion wasn't in the best taste, but he still does some good editting. I'm glad you have such a deep respect for the work that Wikipedia is. There's so much to learn from it on so many levels. Thank you - A-Day 02:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote for the list of computer viruses. Please consider voting similarly for the list of trojan horses as well. Thank you - A-Day 00:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for reminding me. I had meant to vote on it but forgot all about it. Reyk 02:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem! A-Day 03:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tearin s*** up!

You will notice I'm boldly moving virus and trojan articles alike to reflect a more consistent and descriptive naming scheme.

  • All computer viruses will be in the format 'Foo (computer virus)'
  • All trojan horses will be in the format 'Foo (trojan horse)'
  • All computer worms will be in the format 'Foo (computer worm)'

This is required to differentiate biological viruses from computer viruses from trojan horses (and from worms too). Example:

  • biological virus AIDS
  • computer virus AIDS
  • trojan horse AIDS

I hope you agree this is much-needed progress. A-Day (c)(t) 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete, pretty much

I hope it's useful. A-Day (c)(t) 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WMF article spelling change

Hi, I reverted your recent change of spelling on the WMF vulnerability article. The difference is not a spelling error, rather alternative in spellings. The old one pointed to the actual wikipedia's article, whereas the spelling you changed to points to a redirect. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. -- KTC 05:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I apologize for not taking care to check the redirect effect, which is really how 'correctness' should be judged. Thanks again - A-Day (c)(t) 06:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malware WikiProject invitation

Since you've done so much for expanding and helping with articles on computer viruses and other forms of malware, I do hope you will consider joining the Malware WikiProject! Hope to see you there. --Trafton 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issue with Joshi (computer virus)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Joshi (computer virus), we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_644.htm. As a copyright violation, Joshi (computer virus) appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Joshi (computer virus) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Joshi (computer virus). If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Joshi (computer virus), after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you will understand that copy and pasting from copyright protected sources will not be an option for any future virus articles. Thanks, Danski14 06:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Not my contribution, really. Joshi is the 'work' of 220.225.194.130. Please see the history of List of computer viruses (E-K). I simply moved this information into its own article. I was boldly expecting someone be creative and to take the time to turn this article into something more Wiki-ish rather than being simply deletionist. I understand your POV that the article was in bad taste. It wasn't my intention to compromise Wikipedia. Thanks- A-Day (c)(t) 14:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS (computer virus)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article AIDS (computer virus), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of AIDS (computer virus). Superm401 - Talk 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you've just moved this in, but either way I think it needs to be deleted now and I try to warn authors of possible deletions. Superm401 - Talk 11:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing the deletion notice to my attention. While I appreciate you going out of your way to give me a heads up, I'd suggest against removing AIDS (computer virus) and other virus articles. Please keep in mind many viruses are listed in the various lists of computer viruses, and most do not have articles. While virus articles, such as AIDS, tend to not be information rich, I think they're fun to read, give a glimpse into how even the not-so-notable viruses used to work, and pique curiosity.
I would encourage proactive individuals, such as yourself, to expand these virus articles, and possibly join the Malware WikiProject. To my knowledge, the virus articles have no leading authorship, so our list of viruses grows without much content, indicating that while many are interested in virus articles, no one yet knows an efficient way to bring volumes of virus-related content into Wikipedia.
At least, by keeping articles such as AIDS, we provide something of a template for others to use when a new virus article is merited. The AIDS article is also small, and so I feel it is not much a burden on Wikipedia. In the future, please make an argument as to why you'd like to delete an article, but again, thanks for bringing this up with me. Please continue this discussion on the talk page of AIDS. I hope you remove the deletion template from AIDS.
A-Day (c)(t) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As I noted, my reason was notability. However, the prod has been contested by someone else, and I will not take this to AFD. Superm401 - Talk 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not only do I think your response is lax (discussion should go on the AIDS talk page, not mine), but you also forgot to remove your notability template from the AIDS article. By your talk page, it looks like you've made a habit of meddling with articles you shouldn't. Please take responsibility for your mistakes and correct them. I expect better from an admin. A-Day (c)(t) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I put my most recent response here because it was directed at you, not to editors of the AIDS article. When I first tagged AIDS (computer virus) with prod, I provided the exact reason "There is no evidence that this virus is particularly notable, among the many written." Of course, that was directed to editors of the article. Squell noticed the tag, and removed my prod nomination because he believes "Notability is a spectre that haunts all older viruses". Of course, anyone can remove a prod tag, with or without a reason, as the prod process is only meant for non-controversial deletions. When a prod tag is removed, an AFD nomination can optionally be made. In that case, of course, additional arguments and voting would be made on the AFD page. I chose not to make an AFD nomination for this article. Thus, I am making no further effort to delete it; it is therefore unnecessary for me to continue to justify why I thought it should be.
I did not add the notability template. HisSpaceResearch did, in this edit. However, I still agree the article lacks evidence of notability, and will not be removing the tag. You may, if you genuinely believe the article does provide such evidence. I have not used my admin tools in any way on this article. What I did, I did as an ordinary editor, in good faith, and in full compliance with policy. If you have concerns about other actions I have taken, please bring them up separately. Superm401 - Talk 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks for the heads up on the notability template and humoring me with a justification. In the future, I'll be careful to inspect the activity history of the article before flaming the messenger. :) Thanks again. A-Day (c)(t) 07:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and no hard feelings. You may want to explain more about the relationship between AIDS and AIDS II, which will help address notability concerns for AIDS; AIDS II seems more notable. Superm401 - Talk 07:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, AIDS II is cooler than AIDS, but both of them exploited the same DOS vulnerability. It is the underlying insight into this vulnerability that makes them both notable. Actually, if AIDS predates AIDS II, I'd think AIDS is more notable than AIDS II... That said, I think we shouldn't split hairs too much and just let the articles be. A-Day (c)(t) 08:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Do they actually use the same mechanism? It seems as if AIDS rewrites the EXE, and AIDS II creates a accompanying COM (which is executed instead of the EXE). Anyway, like I said, I'm done with these articles for now. Superm401 - Talk 08:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS (computer virus)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article AIDS (computer virus), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of AIDS (computer virus). Dchall1 (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the AIDS and AIDS II articles, the AIDS family was the first known family of viruses to use the corresponding file technique to propagate infection. This is worthy of notice. Please remove your deletion template. A-Day (c)(t) 06:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My bad. I didn't notice the previous prod tag, and didn't see your message on my talk page until just now. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS importance

Per the AIDS and AIDS II articles, the AIDS family was the first known family of viruses to use the corresponding file technique to propagate infection. This is worthy of notice. It appears as though you are in a position to remove the importance tag from AIDS. I hope you find this acceptable. A-Day (c)(t) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not removing the tag just yet. It does not state crucial information for an encyclopedia article, such as when it was first discovered, how many systems it affected, who possibly programmed it, etcetera.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Now there are links to source code, the author is noted, and an estimated data of authorship is provided. There's a link to a YouTube video too. Ready to remove your notability template? A-Day (c)(t) 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
X-D awesome A-Day (c)(t) 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)