Talk:Jerusalem (computer virus)

Jerusalem (computer virus) was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 12, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Low-importance).

Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

@Epicgenius: Thank you very much for your response and suggestions. I will begin the process of nominating the page as a good article and go from there. I sincerely appreciate your time! Shannip (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shannip (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 22 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shannip.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Editing for Class Project[edit]

I just wanted to give a heads-up that I'll be making some wide-range edits to this article within the next few weeks. I'm dedicating a course project solely to researching and writing on this topic. Will be adding sources, information, and grammatical corrections. Shannip (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terminate and stay resident[edit]

I do not believe that the Jerusalem virus used the DOS "Terminate and stay resident" system call, but that it instead relied on trapping interrupts to stay memory resident. I have therefore removed the phrase "as a terminate and stay resident program". In general, viruses using the DOS TSR call were rare. 193.216.223.188 00:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupts?[edit]

"since the advent of Windows, interrupts are no longer used"

I don't think this is true. 69.87.200.97 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure interrupts are still used; however the specific DOS function cited isn't, which is what makes this virus & its variants obselete. I changed a couple of words to reflect this. Rockdozen 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses?[edit]

Most of this article is in present tense, with some confusing exceptions (i.e., "the Jerusalem virus becomes memory resident and would then infect every executable file run"). I copy-edited to make it consistently present tense, but since this is an obsolete virus should the whole thing be in past tense? Rockdozen 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jerusalem (computer virus)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 00:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Article contains confusing jargon. Example from the first paragraph, "Some .EXE files are infected but do not grow because several overlays follow the genuine .EXE file in the same file" What does that mean? Some switching between present tense and past tense. Overall readability by a non-technical person is low. Most of the article is not written in prose, but just a list of bullet points.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section should summarize the article but in this article it contains the bulk of the article's content. It is not organized in a very relevant way- the most important aspects of the computer virus should be summarized in the first few sentences. Review WP:LEAD for more guidelines about this
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Many unreferenced facts in the lead that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Most of the bullet points contain references but I did not attempt to perform any verification of those references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most references are from antivirus vendors, the citation to the podcast would probably be challenged by some reviewers as not meeting WP:RS
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The copyvio detector shows strong correlation with the www.semago.eu blog site, but that blog appears to have been copied from the Wikipedia article and other sites. I reviewed the site that that blog claims as a source, and the same text does not occur there.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No coverage of the subject manner aside from some basic technical aspects. The article says the article was initially very common in its day, but includes no information about reactions or press coverage from the general public. The article is also very unclear as to what effect, or intended effect, the virus has from the perspective of the end user, and what the process of cleanup involved. Was there ever a responsible party found? Was there any newsworthy disruption caused by an infection from this virus? Provide more detail about how a user might get infected by this virus.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The vast majority of the article is a fairly disorganized list of variants that don't tell me much
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is unbiased
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No conflicts in the recent edit history
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are no images. I would doubt that suitable images for a software program could be found, unless there was a screenshot of an infected computer, or something like that
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images
	7. Overall assessment.	Needs a considerable amount of content and polishing

the last day Palestine existed as a country[edit]

How is that sentence there? It is false and is based on some loosely reliable source. Since politics are sensitive matters, I will leave it to others to deal with it Snfdfk (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added "apparently" to the beginning of the sentence so that it is more doubtful, hope it could solve the problem. -ias postb□x 05:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm not sure that is enough. It smells like modern day anti-history (play on ant-vax) shenanigans, since there wasn't a country in the region, but a turkish rule followed by a british mandate, as is well known. The fact is it's a day marked as "Naqba" by arabs of the region, refering to the war and displacement rather than the new claim of statehood. Snfdfk (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]