User talk:Hendrixski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Hendrixski, I look forward to working on the Comparison of Windows and Linux article with you in the near future. I have a great deal of experience using both operating systems in both server and desktop enviroments; I hope to be able to contribute quite a bit to the article. Thanks for the message on my talk page, as well! Nemilar 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Thanks...

Hi Hendrixski, thanks for your message. I will try to contribute to the article, but I am not promising anything. In part because of the ultra-neutral POV that is required - not sure that I could maintain that. Thanks again. --Blowtorch 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shared source

Indeed, it is a term coined by Microsoft specifically for their Windows operating system. Although the points you raised are true, the definition of shared source is just that - it is available to select individuals and companies. In truth, I think it's a weasel word, but Windows is not wholly closed source. Hence, we must add in this term. {Slash-|-Talk} 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Shared source should be mentioned in the article, in multiple places. I just don't think that the way it was currently mentioned is correct. Let's see if I can't fix it. Hendrixski 14:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Windows and Linux

Thanks your your kind comments on my page! I'm happy to help as I can. My problem is that I think the article is too long, but I keep think of new things to add! --Theosch 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL I have a similar feeling. The article is too long, but there's more stuff I want to add to it. Hendrixski 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Criticism of Linux

An editor has nominated Criticism of 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/Criticism of Linux 2 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. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gnu/communism Afd

FWIW, the Gnu/communism article is proposed for deletion. Gronky 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FBUI

The 2.6 kernel series is under active development(and will be until something happens to make 2.7 seem like a good idea to the kernel devs). Something changed with 2.6.10 that the guy who makes FBUI didn't like, so he stuck with 2.6.9. It is severely outdated, but it is a 2.6 kernel. BioTube 04:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primary vs secondary sources

Hi Hendrixski,

I just noticed this edit, in which you refer to "Upgraded from a secondary source (BBC) to a primary source (vatican document)". I'm not suggesting that this particular edit was incorrect, but I wanted you to be aware that in general, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. You may wish to read WP:PSTS. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Looking at this particular case, I agree that it's quite reasonable to use the original quote. Regards, Jakew (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a primary source is prefereable as evidence for the statement made, because it's simply relating what the Pope said. I do have a couple of concerns about the citation, however.
Your reply to Jakew seems to indicate that you haven't consulted the cited sources yourself. If that's the case you shouldn't cite them directly. According to the WP guidelines on citing sources you must at least cite the place where you found them, and avoid giving the impression the original sources have been checked directly and have been found to be accurately represented.
The second of the two citations illustrates very well why this is a sound policy. That citation is at least incomplete, and either the date or the title of the newspaper appears to be incorrect. A search in the Corriere della Sera's online archive for an article on January 30th 1993 containing either of the words "Ratzinger" or "Galileo" found no such article. A search for articles from the dates January 1st, 1992, to December 31st, 1993, containing the word "Ratzinger" returned 52 items, but the only one which looked like it might be at all relevant, from February 9th, 1992, didn't contain a copy of Ratzinger's speech and was on page 15, not page 34. It was a news item about the launch of a book entitled Svolta per l'Europa? which supposedly does contain a copy (whether revised or not I don't know), so perhaps the news item contains something relevant about the speech. To obtain a complete copy of the article it's necessary subscribe to one of the paper's "edicola" services, and I'm not prepared to do that.
The "Dias" in the date of this second citation might indicate that the newspaper being cited is Spanish. But as far as I can tell, although the RCS goup, to which Corriere della Sera belongs, does contain a Spanish newspaper (El Mundo), Corriere della Sera itself doesn't publish a Spanish edition.
Unfortunately, the Corriere della Sera archive only goes back to the beginning of 1992, so it won't contain a copy of the article referred to in your first citation. If you did indeed consult the article personally, could you please check to see whether the copy of the speech it contains is essentially the same as the one in Ratzinger's book. If it is, the references to the speech in the WP articles Galileo Galilei and Galileo affair need to be changed, since the article in the book makes it quite clear that he was not endorsing Feyerabend's opinion about Galileo's trial. Also, the citation should contain the title of the article being cited, and the page of the newspaper where it appears.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have finally discovered that the "30 Dias" (it apparently should be "30Dias") in your second citation is not a date as I had previously supposed, but (probably) the title of a Spanish or Portugese edition of an obscure Italian monthly magazine, 30Giorni. Its foreign language editions appear to be direct translations of the Italian, so if indeed the issue of the magazine you have cited does contain a Spanish or Portuguese version of the quoted text, then the English edition will almost certainly contain an English version of it, and should be cited in preference, if a copy can be found and checked. Unfortunately very few libraries seem to carry copies, and the magazine's on-line archives only go back as far as March 2003 for the foreign language editions (including the English), or January 1998 for the Italian.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of Criticism of Linux

I have nominated Criticism of Linux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. AdrianTM (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Linux

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Criticism of Linux, 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 Criticism of Linux. AdrianTM (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Criticism of Linux

An editor has nominated Criticism of 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/Criticism of Linux (2nd nomination) 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) 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)