User talk:Wrs1864

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read before commenting here

I will try to post replies on the same talk page that the original post was made.

So if you post here, I will reply here, and if I posted to your talk page, I will monitor it and see any replies you make. I think this makes things less confusing because the conversation doesn't get split across two different pages. If you want me to reply elsewhere, please say so. Thanks Wrs1864 16:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Wrs1864, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Havok (T/C/c) 18:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted vandalism on user page

Hi, I blanked the vandalism on your user page. If you want, you can request deletion of your user page using {{db-vandal}} so that the vandalism is not the only thing in the page history. -- Gogo Dodo 04:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add Phishing by Police

Please participate in the discussion, "Add Phishing by Police," before again deleting my entry. It is near the bottom of the discussions page, for Phishing.

[edit] Pokey

Funny, I've known him for years and never have seen anything other than Jef. Of course, he's exactly the sort to deliberately confuse people over it, just for sport. Since he's universally known as Jef, the main article should be titled that way if one is ever made. He's interesting enough so that creating one could be fun. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Watch mf page

You do honestly seem concerned about the list of watch manufacturers if a bit too focused on deletion, which is against my preferences, but anyway, take a look at it now. You seem informed enough about the subject to offer some input on where it should go from here. Maybe put some basic criteria at the top. Seriously, it shouldn't be too hard to define something. Might not cover things historically, but we don't have to do that on this page. Though it might be helpful to do so, and that would be something categories could not do effectively. FrozenPurpleCube 03:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your changes, but only *after* I made my comments in the AfD page. I'm not sure that what you did was as much of an improvement as you may have hoped. I strongly suspect that a significant percentage (most?) of those links are for companies that are not notable and by changing them from being external links to redlines, you have actually made it harder to clean up the page.
I can understand why I appear to be focused on deletion, and you may have a point. My two areas of expertise are spam (see SPF) and watches (Elgin in particular). My knowledge of both areas screams out that this is a spam-magnet that will not be kept clean. I know that I do not have time to do it. The whole horological area of the wikipedia is filled with fanboy type claims and commercial hype to boost the standing of modern watch companies with a large amount of myths and bogus information thrown in. Rolex, for example, is credited with inventing lots of stuff that was actually invented centuries earlier.
I'm afraid that what you have done will likely result in just encouraging these companies to create lots of entries for non-notable companies. Wrs1864 05:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, duh, why would I make changes to a page before I saw it? There's hundreds of thousands of pages on Wikipedia, and I must admit, I have no special interest or knowledge in watches. If you hadn't brought it up on AfD, I wouldn't have even thought about it. And I was waiting to see if there was a strong consensus to delete before tackling the edits myself, and removing what I saw as the worst part. But if it will work better for you to fix it from an earlier version, you can easily go back and make your edits there. I won't complain that you've done your reversions from a past version. I really just wanted to clear out the external links to start with, as that was the most immediate problem with the article. You may be right that there are people who will add frivolous entries to this list, but I would say, that's not a reason to delete in and of itself. If it becomes a problem, you can ask an admin to protect the page, or put it on the list of pages asking people to lend a hand watching it. Or stronger warnings at the top. Yes, this list started off a external linkfarm, but since I would say it split from Watch like that, that was a fault of the people who did the split as a copy from the Watches page, not a result of spam-problems. They started off wrong. Anyway, if you find problems with articles, you should bring them up. I don't see any comments by you on the Rolex page, but if they're making false claims, remaining silent isn't the way to fix them. FrozenPurpleCube 16:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, when I said "after I made my comments on the AfD", I meant my most recent comments where I asked if deleting all external links would be acceptable, not my initial AfD listing. Sorry for the confusion. As for doing a lot of work in the watch-related areas, I repeat, I just do not have time. Even cleaning up the one list of watch manufactures I would estimate to likely take hundreds of hours. Seriously. You can't accepted marketing claims that the various companies "make watches" and the important information is too well hidden. Again, I think what you did will probably just make things worse by encouraging the creation of non-notable company pages, but please don't expect me to finish what you started. Wrs1864 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt it'd take hundreds of hours to get the list into a more acceptable shape. Perfect? Maybe, but that's not what you, or anyone else should be aiming for. Set your sights a little lower, just work on what you know. Put in five minutes, and hour, hope another dozen people show up and do the same (though in the cases of watches, I doubt it'll happen). Yes, I understand that at a deep level there may be cases where one company is just rebranding another companies, and that sort of thing is not public, let alone common knowledge. But so what? There are folks who don't know, or care that Sears doesn't make their own equipment. Or Emerson. Or any of a dozen companies. All of that information may be known by someone, but it may not be readily available. Eventually though, Wikipedia should contain that knowledge. Or at least, that's the dream. One person can't do it all though, no matter how much they try. So we hope there's eventually enough to get it right. BTW I doubt all that many company pages will be made. People have to have the incentive to do it first, and in many cases, that won't happen. If there are some, well, that's no worse than Wikipedia gets every single day. But if you are truly worried about it, be bold and revert. I doubt it's any better, but you never know. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on your spam edit

Not sure if the "anit-spam kook" comment was sent my way or not... regardless, knock it off. Please see WP:NPA, no personal attacks if this is confusing for you. Sethie 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, it wasn't intended to be sent your way or to be a personal attack. It was supposed to be humor and was basically a direct quote from one of the references that was given: [1]. I'm going to post this to both of our talk pages to make sure it is clear. If I could edit the history comment, I would. Again, sorry, it was intended as a humor. Wrs1864 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Wayne!

Thanks for your welcome! JeffGent 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REvision of page "Internet"

please discuss revisions of accurate information on talk page before blindly assuming you are correct --Rebent 14:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.... strange that you think you are correct and therefore assume that you can make the changes. I have put a comment on the talk page though. Wrs1864 15:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC 1149

the problem is there was no discussion on RFC 1149 unless you can show me one. Cocoaguycontribstalk 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

it is listed in with the other RFCs, all 104 of them. see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#December_21. Wrs1864 04:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harris's Lament

My condolences on your recent loss. -- Jeff G. 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Harris's lament still exists, the capitalized version needs a redirect, and possibly Harris' Lament also. I'm not going to add them until after the prod gets decided though. Thanks for all your work on it. The WSJ article is a nice touch. Wrs1864 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, the title of this section is NOT the page we were working on at Harris's Lament. Never mind. -- Jeff G. 22:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hostname

Hi, I see that you're still editing Hostname, so I'm not going to touch it right now. Please consider adding a Scarcity link to the "See also" section of Hostname, given my recent changes to Scarcity. Thanks! -- Jeff G. 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Wrs1864 22:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Domain name

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Wrs1864! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page, and I will make followups there if you respond there. Wrs1864 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shadowbot +example.com

Shadowbot actually has a built-in safety check that will stop it from reverting if it detects that it has edited that article within the last two edits. This basically means that if you revert Shadowbot's reversion, it will leave you alone. Shadow1 (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you: constructive and substantial edits in the recent times

Wrs1864: thanks you for your recent edits[2] to Application-level gateway. I followed other edits you have done lately related to networking domain. Pleased to see some constructive and substantial edits in the recent times. Raanoo 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been trying to clean up the whole IETF RFC stuff for a while now, and I think I am almost done. *whew*! It all started with cleaning up one link, and I kept finding more stuff to fix. Wrs1864 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rDNS

Actually no, sir. You removed the wrong sentence. According to RFC1912 an IP-address can only resolve into ONE hostname (which is logical, since otherwise it wouldn't be resolving to a name at all). That was exactly my point: The RFC is this strict because it assures auth options, like whitelisting and such. Since only one name can resolve out of each IP-address, and unique IPv4 addresses are hard to come by these days, there is no way to keep combining the two. My statement was entirely correct, so I will reverse your stupid changes. 194.109.22.149 03:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Uh, I'm sorry, but I can find no where in RFC 1912 that says that there can be only one PTR record. I can also find documentation from the IETF that there can be multiple PTR records. Please document your claim that there can't be multiple PTR records. Wrs1864 13:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wrs1864 on this point.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] internet marketing mess

I left you a message at my talk page. Cheers --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] host names vs. domain names

Hi Wayne, I feel that your edits to the DNS and hostname articles, while technically accurate, make these articles harder to understand. Particularly so, because your definition of "hostname" appears to partially contradict this definition and Wikipedia's own definition at hostname; you appear to define hostname as a type of FQDN. I have attempted to clarify what I think you meant. Please review my explanatory edit and correct it if necessary. Also, given that most users apparently define "host name" different than you, and given that this is Wikipedia (which has a popularity bias), I wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to yield and restate your point about the naming restrictions in a way that is not likely to cause confusion as per the above? I may not reply (timely), but in any case I would ask you if you could do a short edit of User talk:86.56.48.12 once you have responded here. (That would alert me to your response.) Thank you. 86.56.48.12 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bounce message

Need to stop people abusing SMTP standards.

I have host several email domains, via a common SMTP firewall, this system has no knowledge of user names behind it? So the Fake Bounce method has no meaning, the Firewall could say OK to anything, but our basic policy is to refuse bounces due to most being BOGUS! Only a few known hosts are allowed to bounce! We feel rather than you promoting SPAM you should fight against it!

So signal that FAKE BOUNCES are not a good idea, and make system mail administration people the world over happy people!

Our module that deals with SPAM is a CPAN module, not at this date ready! even though we have withdrawn our commercial product, as we feel that effective SPAM protection should be available to all for FREE.

anti-spam@celmorlauren.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celmorlauren (talk • contribs) 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Do not accuse me of promoting spam. I have helped create free anti-spam systems that are designed to help reduce bogus bounces that are in use by folks like google, usbank, and microsoft. Wrs1864 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All my edits have been removed

Just to note. I will note use Wiki again for any purpose, also I will recommend others to ignore it. As your system is so insecure and open to people who spoil everything they touch. (Including yourself) This message left in a last mode of desperation, wiki a good idea let down by sloppy development and administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.153.184 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get a life

Get a life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.109.107 (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First off you dont even get paid to do this?

Whats the point of being stupid? you have no idea about what information you are deleting from the world. And as soon as i get enough money im going to buy wikipedia and shut it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.109.107 (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on deleting this user's commercial spam, wrs1864. Just ignore this sort of comments --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] link removal sms spoofing

Why do you keep removing the links to youspoof? The site has great information about the topics, has no ads and is certainly not spam. Please take a look at youspoof.info and I think you will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.78.249 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Before removing any of the links to youspoof.info, I looked at it. I have looked at it again now. I do not agree that it has lots of great info, it actually appears to have very little. Whether it has ads or not is irrelevant. Also, it appears that you are from south Salt Lake UT, and youspoof.info is registered to someone in the same area. Self-promotion and conflicts of interest are strongly discouraged on wikipedia. Wrs1864 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] youspoof

I disagree with you. I think the site has lots of great data on several spoofing topics. I am not affiliate with the site. To that end I feel it inappropriate you are removing links to valid sites with good information. Will you at least put a few links to sites with spoofing information ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.78.249 (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

It was looking a little bare. 64 kB and only a tiny one paragraph four sentence introduction. And very little about the cost of spam in the article. 199.125.109.74 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

I will be sure to remove other links that I see as promotional as there are many on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loftenter (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do. There are many of them, but if people didn't continue to remove the links, wikipedia would be nearly useless. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal inappropriate

I am considering to restore your deletion to Escapement and also to add a section concerning escapements in pianos.

Escapement has meanings beyond clocks.

Perhaps the extensive clock info should be moved to "Escapement (clock)", and reduced in this article to a simple example?

I will await your comments.

Best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the current article on escapements is too clock-centric. That should be cleaned up. However, the subject of the article is what an escapement is and an overview of the different types of escapements. Escapements are used in many different things and a brief list of examples would be appropriate, but I as I said, long discussions on every use of escapements does not seem appropriate, just like every use of magnets are not discussed on the magnet article. Wrs1864 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Dmoz

Hello. I see your vote at the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_15#Template:Dmoz. I agree with you.

Best regards, nejron (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Siemens COM

Hey,

Why do you keep deleting our comments. Other companies like cisco also have product information on their wiki page...eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems#Partial_list_of_software_products —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenCommunications (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it looks like cisco's page could be cleaned up a little also. Please take a a closer look at WP:CORP and WP:EL. Wikipedia articles are supposed to give information about the company, it is not supposed to be an advertising platform or used to promote one view or another. (See WP:SOAP). That other articles, such as cisco has problems too is a common argument and is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is the external links that are the real problem more than the subject matter of the products.
Also, please be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you are in any way associated with Seimens, you should probably not be editing articles that are closely related to them. If this company is notable, others will write stuff about it.
I hope this helps clear things up a little. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your undos

Hi Wayne... it's been a long time.

After reviewing the policy, I understand your revisions.

Hi Greg. yes, it has been a long time
I think you are making assumptions about my feelings about the NAWCC and any chapters in it. Take a look at Special:Contributions/Wrs1864 and you will see that I regularly clean up external links as per WP:EL. Only a few days ago, I changed an external link on the dollar watch article from some watch dealer's website that showed two dollar (one might not even have been a dollar watch) and no explanations to the NAWCC museum. (See the diff.) I looked from Sam's website about dollar watches but I could not find it, it looks like he has taken it down.
Wikipedia has policies about how stuff should be written. One is that you are supposed to have a neutral point of view), another is that Wikipedia is not a directory. It would not be fair to all the other chapters if only a few are promoted in the NAWCC article.
bah, I see you updated the message as I wrote this, and so I'll stop the explanation here. Good luck with collecting watches, and I hope you work some more on wikipedia, the horology stuff is very lacking. Wrs1864 (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to muegge.cc

I just googled "muegge.cc website translation" and I got several hundred hits, including from authotities such as xml.org, dmoz.org, multilingual.com. I think this is highly relevant information because as a developer, I'm constantly looking for sites that demonstrate best L10N practices. And this one is definitely one of the most inspiring websites. Or can you point me to one that not only shows that automatic website translation works, but also how to do it? So, please, do the L10N community a favor and leave this information in here. Autoterm (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panerai

Please contribute to (or kick off) the discussion at Talk:Panerai. Thank you.

As it happens, I agree with your action (but am too busy to write another explanation any time very soon). However, while what you're opposing may well be wrong, it's not vandalism. So WP:3RR applies to all. -- Hoary (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have put my thoughts on the talk page and sorry for not entering text in the revert to make sure it is clear that this wasn't vandalism. 14:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You removed a number of "commercial" websites that use Spamassassin.. If your going to say "This isnt an index" then that entire group should have been removed. Why remove just some?.. MailLaunder is clearly the same thing that SpamMinder was, etc. I dont understand your justification here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.23.98 (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open mail relay

You placed a {{POV}} tag on the Open mail relay, but the last dispute was a while ago. What POV problems do you see in the article? ffm 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, here you removed some content from the history section. Since this _is_ the history section, some repetition of information from other articles is acceptable, no? ffm 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience editing this article, there can often be a long lag between some of the editors reviewing and making changes. It doesn't seem to be a high priority. As such, I don't consider the last dispute to be "a while ago", but actually fairly recent. Hence, my readding of the POV tag. Mind you, I think most of the recent edits have improved the article and made it more neutral, but I suspect that Dean Anderson would still really object to it. I guess I'm trying hard to be neutral here.
Part of the reason why I'm trimming back the history section is that is not really needed to explain what open relays are. There is a huge amount of history that could be added. Dean likes to concentrate on particular parts of the history that have affected him and where he feels he has been wronged. I would rather not dig out the long email threads where Dean, Paul Vixie, and dozens of other players all debated what the "facts" were, who did what when and why, who is morally right, etc. Many of these participants feel that they were doing the "right" thing and strongly object to actions done by others.
I think we can reach an article that people consider more neutral by not opening various cans of worms. Especially ones that I doubt that the average reader of wikipedia is going to much care about.
Oh, I am still going through this article, I think there are some things that really don't stand up and need to be changed. Also some key points are left out about why spammers originally used open relays, and then why they stopped. If you could, give me a while to finish editing, and then hack on the things you think could be made better. Wrs1864 (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we continue this discussion here? It's an informal mediation process with a neutral editor. ffm 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Wrs1864 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So... is the article neutral enough now? ffm 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion? yes. I really didn't think it was that bad before I added the PoV tag, I just knew that Dean wouldn't like it and would probably post again later (as he did). I did check after I didn my last round of edits, and I couldn't find anything in Dean's list of objections that still applied. Either the sections had been removed (as they weren't strictly about open relays anyway), or reworked. I didn't mean to try to get the last edit in or anything, please feel free to make any changes you think would improve the article, including any reverts of my edits. I strongly support the WP:OWNER policy. Wrs1864 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IEEE undo

You've undone an undo I made without first commenting on the talk page. Could you please explain what exactly is not good with the sentence you deleted, so we can alter it and make it acceptable to both of us? An undo war isn't going to do any good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelthelion (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious from the edit comment I left. IEEE claiming they are important has a huge conflict of interest. Wrs1864 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BATV!=VERP

Hi Wrs, please see my comment on Talk:Signed_VERP.

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O.B. Macaroni

I added a reference to O.B. Macaroni. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O.B. Macaroni. --Eastmain (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links in Internationalized domain name article

User:Wrs1864 and User:Podzap, thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia and especially to the Internationalized domain name article. I noticed that you have been going back and forth, adding and removing a certain external link in that article. What often works well in such cases (as you of course well know) is to discuss the matter in the article's Talk page and arrive at a consensus. This is usually less frustrating than seeing edits get undone back and forth. I carved out a place at Talk:Internationalized domain name#External_links for that discussion. I'm posting this message at both your Talk pages, but please reply at the article's Talk section linked above. Thanks! --Jdlh | Talk 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of BGP (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article BGP (disambiguation), 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Andareed (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop removing links

You idiot!

[edit] Re: 217.184.142.38

So, why did you stop using omniplex? Wrs1864 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

An admin deleted a bunch of GIFs I've created claiming that GIF is obsolete, that backwards compatibility ("visible with any browser") is irrelevant, and that important 20*20 pixel icons need better formats. Not following any deletion policy, of course. After that I had enough of the admin model here, randomized my passwords beyond recognition (here, meta, and mediazilla:), emptied my user pages (moving stuff around to a "hidden" subpage), and returned to IETF work. At the moment I abuse your "contributions" as watchlist... ;-) --217.184.142.38 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I seem to remember seeing something about those GIF's, but I didn't understand what exactly was going on and never looked into it closely. You always did a lot more with the core software of wikipedia than I have ever done. Feel free to edit User:Wrs1864/omniplex with links and use the "related changes" function to as a watch list. Wrs1864 (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't intend to work "regularly" here again. Today I wanted to check that all RFC 3700 have been updated to RFC 5000, doing that I stumbled over your SMTP + IDN + DSN + TLD edits plus discussion with Harald, and that got me interested in what else is going on, including two merge proposals. Updating all 2821 to 2821bis and all 2822 to 2822upd everywhere (not limited to Wikipedia) will be great fun. BTW, I miss you on the openspf lists + pages. --217.184.142.38 (talk) 00:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flamewars......

... first time I've seen "since the time of the MARID meltdown" called "forever"..... sometimes it feels like that.... :-) --Alvestrand (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about.... /me wanders off to read repressed memories.  ;-) Wrs1864 (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Private network

256 contiguous class Cs * 254 adress (192.168.x.0 and 192.168.x.255 is not adress) = 65,024, not 65,536 --Wyksztalcioch (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether 192.168.x.0 and 192.168.x.255 can be used as host addresses depend on the OS/IP stack. All IP stacks updated since the introduction of CIDR can use them. Wrs1864 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We talk about C class, when is defined in RFC with 24 CIDR. In Wikipedia write: "In classful addressing (now obsolete with the advent of CIDR), there are only three possible subnet masks: Class A, 255.0.0.0 or /8; Class B, 255.255.0.0 or /16; and Class C, 255.255.255.0 or /24". In this case 192.168.x.255 or .0 can't by used as host —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyksztalcioch (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But, as mentioned in the text you quoted, classful networks are obsoleted by Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). Since the mid 1990s, you have been able to use, for example, 192.168.x.255 for a host computer. There probably are still some systems that either have bugs are haven't been updated, but they are rare. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Please, give me one example adress with .255 (IP adress, netmask, gateway) in last octet, whenwhich is in C class --Wyksztalcioch (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I quickly found 206.223.213.255 being used by dsl-dhcp-213-255.kpunet.net. This IP address is in the "class C" space since the first three bits of 206 are 110 (that is, it is in the range of 192-239). If I looked harder, I'm sure I could find you a website in active use that was in the class C space with the bottom quad being 255. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In RFC 791 write: "in class c, the high order three bits are one-one-zero, the next 21 bits are the network and the last 8 bits are the local address." If this adress is normal IP adress, and "three bits are one-one-zero, the next 21 bits are the network", what is broadcast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyksztalcioch (talk • contribs) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(<-) The discussions about classes in RFC 791 (1981) were changed by RFC 1338 (1992), which was in turn obsoleted by RFC 1519 (1993), which was obsoleted by RFC 4632 (2006). Things change over time. There no longer is a fixed number of bits for the network. Please read the Classless Inter-Domain Routing as mentioned above. Wrs1864 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Did you read all of this RFC? --Wyksztalcioch (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
RFC 4632 (newest):
  • Class C (MSB '110'), and 2097152 possible networks each and 254 end systems (256 bit combinations minus the reserved all-zeros and all-ones patterns).
  • For example, the legacy "Class B" network 172.16.0.0, with an implied network mask of 255.255.0.0, is defined as the prefix 172.16.0.0/16, the "/16" indicating that the mask to extract the network portion of the prefix is a 32-bit value where the most significant 16 bits are ones and the least significant 16 bits are zeros. Similarly, the legacy "Class C" network number 192.168.99.0 is defined as the prefix 192.168.99.0/24; the most significant 24 bits are ones and the least significant 8 bits are zeros.
  • n.n.n.0/24 256 16777216 legacy "Class C"
  • This is equivalent in size to a block of 2048 legacy "Class C" network numbers (or /24s)

In all of this quotes C class have netmask 24--Wyksztalcioch (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, a "class C" is equivalent to a /24 and you will frequently see people use them interchangeably. I'm not sure what you are trying to say or ask of me. If you mean that everything in the old "class C" space has to be allocated in /24's, that is clearly wrong as explained in the RFC. I don't know what else to say. The end result is still that 192.160.0.0/16 has 2^16 IP addresses, of which, 2^16-2 could be hosts if you dont' subnet it. Or, if you subnet that, you could have 2^14 networks of /30's with only 2^14 hosts, or you could subnet it different ways and have many other combinations. That's the whole point of CIDR, is you get flexibility. Wrs1864 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I say only, 206.223.213.255/16 isn't in class C (you say "class C" is equivalent to a /24), and 206.223.213.255/24 is a broadcast. C class must have 254 IP adress, and is 256 subnet privat network in C class so i think should been ,65024 not 65,536. I pleasa, revert your revert ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyksztalcioch (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm clearly not doing a good job of explaining things to you, I think you need to find someone else to help you. The 16-bit blocks that you changed have 2^16 IP addresses, so I will not restore your edits. Wrs1864 (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have a Question

Hello, I recently tried to add a link to our companies website that is related to your article Email Privacy but it didn't seem to stick.

Since I am new to contributing to wikipedia, I was not sure if it is something you have to approve or add yourself.

Our site is http://www.privacyharbor.com and we have free resources, tools and information about email privacy as well as private email services that are extremely affordable (although our primary focus is education).

If it is a case of approval could you please add the link and as soon as we have our own wikipedia page I'll update you with the internal link.

Thanks,


Sean privacyharbor.com

Privacyharbor (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I reviewed the link you placed on e-mail privacy and found that it did not qualify under the wikipedia rules for external links (see WP:EL in general and in particular, WP:LINKSPAM). Also please be aware of the wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest (see WP:COI). It would be best for you to not add links to your own website, nor encourage others to do so on your behave. Rather let others add them if they think it is appropriate. One further note, the e-mail privacy article is not mine, wikipedia has strict rules against considering any article to be under anyone individual's control (see WP:OWNER). Many others have contributed to the article and will review any changes I make. Wrs1864 (talk)