User talk:80.221.159.67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Committed identity: 4a0860fac6be168a66824cc00ad0e9d8221dd8c051d596dd4ea46b99dbf5b91f is a SHA-256 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

There is no external relationship. Saw the tv show too fat for 15, and realized certain performers had no Wikipedia pages. Did my research on this topic. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayl2104 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for reverting vandalism, Athough I recommded you to create an account. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 01:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is an WP:VALIDALT. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File discussion[edit]

I made file Empty_SVG.svg by simple writing (1x1, without any figures). I thought I could make a file like somebody's and I've set copyright as it's not personal file. Smthngnw (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

Hi,

Regarding the PROD tags, please note that they were being removed by a sock of User:Dave8899. Thanks,

GABgab 12:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Re: my changes in article List of TCP and UDP port numbers[edit]

I'm very sorry that you removed my changes and the rest of MooseFS ports (ok - I can understand removing my changes, but why all?). You asked me to leave you a message if I think you could have made a mistake, so I'm doing it. Maybe in fact I didn't quote any sources, but they are publicly available on official MooseFS website, please e.g. open https://moosefs.com/manpages/mfscgiserv.html (and other manpages) or https://moosefs.com/documentation/moosefs-3-0.html, select "MooseFS 3.0 User's Manual" and then navigate to page number 11 - Chapter 2.1 "Network requirements" (by the way I have no clue why official website of MooseFS on MooseFS article page changed to moosefs.org from moosefs.com - try to download sources from moosefs.org - it will redirect you to moosefs.com which is an official website).

Regarding whole situation: I just wanted to make Wikipedia better and now I feel like someone "unwelcome", who did something bad and actually it decreased my willing to make any changes in the future. I have never written any information which could be untrue or improper in any way. Oxide94 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oxide94: Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable per WP:VERIFY. I did a web search for "MooseFS port" and the first search result was MooseFS reference guide. Because MooseFS's port usage is not recognized by IANA and the List of TCP and UDP port numbers article has had Template:Refimprove at the top since 2015, unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

I did a search for port 9420 on one or two of the pages but could not find any documentation to support this. I see that port 9421 can be supported by a reference which I previously missed, so I will add it back shortly to the article.

Regarding the official site, the data is from wikidata:Q2328609. If it is incorrect, it should be corrected there.

You are welcome to edit as long as you follow Wikipedia's policies, and I'm sorry for making a mistake in judgement. Please understand that your MooseFS ports were not the only ports to be removed: revision diff 736914784 removed a lot of unsourced and unnotable examples. In that light, MooseFS can now get more attention than the previously listed non-notable ports. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@80.221.159.67: Thanks for the fast update and a lot of useful information. So now I will try to quote sources of the information I add wherever possible. Could you please re-add all the MooseFS ports (It would look a bit strange If I re-added them myself after your comment on deletion)? I can add the sources then, even for each port. Oxide94 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oxide94: You're welcome. I'm creating a citation based on MooseFS 3.0 User’s Manual at the moment, but I'm taking it slowly to be in-depth. For referencing, Template:Cite web or Template:Cite book is appropriate if you can use it. See Help:Referencing for beginners.

Please remember to disclose your COI if you haven't done so already. I would not recommend editing articles where you have an external relationship. You can use Template:Request edit on the talk page to request changes. Though, I see that you have avoided issues related to WP:NPOV, which is a good thing. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oxide94:  Done: revision diff 736940331. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.159.67 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@80.221.159.67: Nobody pays me for writing anything about MooseFS on Wikipedia, I do it mainly in my spare time because I know quite a lot about this filesystem. Recently I did mainly updates about newest versions, which are minor edits. I always try to be impartial, objective and write only information which is merithorical - I mean write about facts, not my thoughts or "imaginated stories" (e.g. please see my edits).

Regarding MooseFS TCP ports Thanks for adding them back! You can also find some detailed info on GitHub (here are parts of source code which refer to TCP ports used by MFS):

Oxide94 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oxide94: I still believe you have a COI, you are were listed as one of the team members in moosefs organization at GitHub. A COI does not have to be financial interest. Some of your edits such as revision diff 728369807 and revision diff 720571124 point in the direction that you have a COI. Your account is also mostly a single-purpose account, which could hint at WP:NOTHERE in worst case. I personally don't believe your contributions to be a problem, as long as they keep a neutral point of view, but it's still suggested to use Template:Request edit with your COI. Please make a disclosure. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth mentioning the GitHub username oxide94 has name Piotr Robert Konopelko, and the MooseFS 3.0 User Manual is also authored by the same person. This makes me believe you are Piotr and have a COI. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically § Self-promotion. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@80.221.159.67: Ok, now I read the description of COI again and more carefully. So regarding the statements there - Yes, I am and yes, I am listed on GitHub because I am a member of MooseFS Team. I am a not a developer (as you stated in MooseFS talk page), I support MooseFS Users in terms of technical aspects. So as far as understood I should add the info described here to MooseFS talk page. Should I just edit your edit on MooseFS talk page (i.e. this COI box)? I don't know such features of Wikipedia very well, so just asking. Could you please give me more hints on it to make it properly? Actually now I don't know what to do - should I stop write anything about MooseFS? It is a bit ridiculous situation for me, because of my knowledge on specific system I am "banned" to make contributions to Wikipedia about... the thing I know very well. PS: My account maybe looks like "single-purpose" as you mentioned, but it definitely is not. It was created far before I ever heard about MooseFS. Oxide94 (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oxide94: If you want to disclose your potential COI at MooseFS, you would add {{UserboxCOI|MooseFS}} to your user page at User:Oxide94. I'll fix the COI box and remove the mention of developer in good faith.

Regarding editing the MooseFS article (or any other article with COI for the matter), you're not banned from doing so but it is discouraged if you have a COI. Generally speaking in a case where there is undoubtedly false information, then there should be no COI to remove the wrongful text yourself. In your case, I repeat that I personally don't believe your contributions to be a problem. Other Wikipedians will watch for requested edits on talk pages when labeled with {{Request edit}}. This is to make sure to keep Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

I've heard Wikipedia:Teahouse is a good place for new editors to ask questions, advice on editing and become familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia neutral and verifiable. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can also add Template:Help me to ask a question or get help. See the template documentation. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@80.221.159.67: Thanks for far more information, it's really helpful! Regarding to my COI with MooseFS disclosure:  Done: revision diff 736954038. Oxide94 (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oxide94: I moved it to your user page in revision diff 736954624. I'll fix the article talk page COI box now. Cheers! 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@80.221.159.67: Thanks. Cheers! Oxide94 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning templates[edit]

Hey there, fellow editor. I seen your recent edit on User talk:66.244.122.95, and just wanted to remind you that there are levels to the warnings that are used for people vandalizing/blanking Wikipedia. Please make sure you start with the lowest level warning, otherwise an WP: Administrator might deny your request to have an vandal blocked based on that fact. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk board. Thanks. Boomer VialHolla 07:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: See the user's contributions, there was a valid reason to skip the first level. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you missed the first act of vandalism, or the edit is offensive (different in extreme cases), there wouldn't be an acceptable reason for skipping levels. I've been told this already by an administrator who denied my request because I skipped levels. I'm only trying to save you the frustration. Boomer VialHolla 08:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: See Wikipedia:Reverting vandalism: It is not necessary to start with the level one warning, particularly when faced with especially egregious or offensive vandalism, when the vandal has damaged multiple articles, or when the vandal has created an account with no positive contributions across more than one editing session. I am fine, thanks. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess learning for yourself is another way of going about it... Boomer VialHolla 00:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: I've been editing and doing anti-vandalism since 2008 2009, with rollback rights on Finnish Wikipedia. I have nothing more to comment on this matter. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC) (edited: 00:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

All I'm to say is that different administrator's take it on a case-by-case basis, so you're never guaranteed the same outcome. I've gotten away with skipping a first warning as well, but it's not going to happen every time. Boomer VialHolla 00:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospect (software)[edit]

I've requested a response on my talk page. Unlike Dianna, you don't seem to like people to talk about their articles on your talk page. I don't know how to send messages on WP yet. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DovidBenAvraham: I'll read your reply in a moment.

I don't understand what you mean with you don't seem to like people to talk about their articles on your talk page. Talking on this talk page is fine.

As for notifying users, there's {{Reply to}}. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for notifying unregistered users. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote you don't seem to like people to talk about their articles on your talk page., I was referring to the much larger number of conversations on User talk:Diannaa. Anyway, I have three new replies to you on my talk page. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have two new replies to you on my talk page. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DovidBenAvraham: I've lost what you're talking about a long time ago. I see that you are making progress, but I have no more words for how I could help you. You can propose changes at Talk:Retrospect. Good luck to you. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you can't walk away from your criticisms this easily! You're the administrator who talked about proposing the article for deletion. I've just finished revising the article so that a full 50% (13 out of 26) of references are to third-party secondary sources, and—as I explained previously on my Talk page—the remaining references to primary sources are in the article only because there were no reviews of the Retrospect software for several major releases. I think my latest revisions would justify your deleting the tag that reads "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." As far as the "Original research" questions I myself raised for the "Documentation" section, I haven't had an answer yet from the Help Desk, but I think the two issues are simple enough that any WP administrator—including you—should be at least able to express an opinion. As for the "MOS" criticism, I'll try to deal with it this afternoon. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DovidBenAvraham: I am not an administrator. I am an editor like you, but unlike you I don't have any knowledge of Retrospect. Any contributor can propose an article for deletion, where depending on community consensus a proposed article may be deleted. You're doing a good work. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have 3 new replies to you on my Talk page, if you still care. In one of them I say that I have now taken care of the MOS problem, by converting my bulleted lists to WP-style. Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't know until I looked it up. As far as your knowledge of Retrospect is concerned, permit me to give you three sentences of enlightenment. Assuming you really work at Sonera, what if you were the head of a non-programming department whose employees produced output that had to be retrievable years later—even if the employee that produced it had left the company? That seems to be the situation that most administrator users of Retrospect find themselves in; their organizations are either (1) producers of periodically-updated creative content that needs to be retrievable years later—think advertising agencies or commercial art/Web shops, or (2) producers of policy-related documents that need to be retrievable years later for examination by regulators—think regulated telephone companies. I personally am an exception who happens to fall into neither of these two categories; my needs are explained in this thread-originating post on the Ars Technica Mac forum, or in the third and fourth non-bolded paragraphs in this later post in the same thread; the remainder of that later post explains why no other backup program available in early 2016 would meet them. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DovidBenAvraham: I don't work at Sonera. They are my ISP which provide Internet connectivity to my residence, and I am their subscriber. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:ᶠᶡ[edit]

This page is created, you should be able to edit it now. — xaosflux Talk 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright heads up[edit]

Hey person editing from 80.221.159.67. I do appreciate the heads up at User talk:Earl King as to this diff. However, the beginning part of the sentence is short and not very close to the source, and the balance if the sentence is a quotation, cited using an inline citation and marked as a quotation using quote marks, so I don't see any copyright issue here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: Okay. By the way, you can use Special:Diff/744514062 to link to the diff internally. Don't forget to strip https:// to agnostic // if you use "external links" in-wiki. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change undone List of TCP and UDP port numbers[edit]

I just added a port number with a link to the company like many others in the list. Undoing this addition seems a bit arbitrary and unfair, unless you clean up the rest of the list. Furthermore, you deleted the whole entry instead of the linking, while it is a valid, IANA registered entry, so you should at least put it back, even if you remove the linking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinvandeb (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwinvandeb: Your concern seems to be about Special:Diff/747687245.

I looked at the IANA list now, and it seems like you have a conflict of interest in Van Doren / port 18668. It was assigned on 2016-10-31 to Edwin van de Burgt, which from your username I can guess to be you. Editors can be unduly influenced by their work, relationships or other connections. I'll leave your talk page a more detailed explanation about COI policies.

Wikipedia's list is not exhaustive: Companies being notable is not usually enough reason to be listed in the TCP/UDP port list; the protocol itself must satisfy at least the common selection criteria guideline. Van Doren (company) also doesn't have an article here at Wikipedia, so I can't understand how the company or vdmmesh would be notable for inclusion. In other words, mere verifiable existence is not enough for list inclusion and should be referenced with reliable sources.

As for cleaning up the rest of the list, you can volunteer to help. You can check the list's discussion page for the current progress of removing unnotable and unverifiable ports. I don't think this to be unfair. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@80.221.159.67: I think the Wikipedia article should either list all IANA ports or just a few as illustration like the Dutch page https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP-_en_UDP-poorten (like the most importent top 20 or so). Furthermore, I don't agree with a conflict of interest, because at the top of the page is says "This article contains one or more incomplete lists which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it / them with entries that are reliably sourced.", and my addition was (is) reliable sourced, because the IANI list is the de facto standard port assignment list. My addition was neutral and didn't in any way try to favor or advertise a company. I think the way the list is used is looking up a port number to find out its use. The more ports are added, official or unofficial, the more the list becomes of value. I myself used the list to find a port number that was not used (official or unoffical) for a new registration, as you found out. I fail to see the the relevance of "Reserved" or "Deprecated" or entries marked "?" over real legitimate port registrations, and am wondering what the exact rationale is for inclusion in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinvandeb (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwinvandeb: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or database like IANA. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Anyone interested to look up more ports which may not be verifiable or notable enough for an encyclopedia can refer to the IANA list. In sense IANA is the de facto authority for port number assignments, I have no doubt.

Listing only top 20 ports would be a stub-level article requiring expansion to be more useful for an encyclopedia. The link you used is not a reliable source, it is a primary source. Self-published statements are potentially unreliable, thus require third-party, independently published sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability too.

While pageviews are not an accurate or appropriate measurement of article quality, the monthly pageviews have increased ~25% since from ~10,000 daily views to ~12,000+ since the cleanup started according to toollabs:pageviews.

As for ports marked as Reserved, I've been thinking of removing most of them as low encyclopedic value. In fact, many of them were already removed on in Special:Diff/746373266. Deprecated may have some significance in an encyclopedia, if explained in description why the status is now deprecated.

So far I don't believe the Van Doren port to have significance to be listed in the article, unless the protocol (and/or the company) becomes notable enough to have its own article at Wikipedia or other significant third-party references. Furthermore, I disagree with your notion that you disclaim to have a conflict of interest: The account you're using has no other edits but those related to Van Doren, which you are listed as a contact person in the IANA list. I'd not see this as an issue, if the edits were significant enough for inclusion. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@80.221.159.67: I totally agree with you that the port has no special significance, so I'm not interested in having it added to a list of 'notable port', because as you said the port is by far not important enough. I was only aiming for completeness (and that's why I disagree on the COI). So I totally disagree with your opinion that the list should only include 'notable' ports, while it probably is THE reference source for most people on official and unoffical port numbers, despite the fact that Wikipedia doesn't want to be a dictionary. And if you read the articles you quote, primary sources CAN be reliable. If Albert Einstein would correct a mistake in an article about Special Relativity, of course he would be a reliable source, because he invented it, but if he edited an article about himself, things would be different. The thing is, do you correct facts like a date, or do you correct subjective stuff, like if somebody was important or something he did was important.

And for cleaning up the list to a list of only 'notable' ports: a very easy criteria would be that the port must link to a Wikipedia article. That would be an objective and easy to use criteria.

So, to me this discussion isn't about my edit anymore, but more about who gets to decide what's on the list and what not and the arbitrariness of the ports that are on the list. Edwinvandeb (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwinvandeb: I choose to follow the criteria of having a Wikipedia article for inclusion. A reference to an internet standard from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is often enough for inclusion too, because it is verifiable (and the publication has been peer-reviewed). 80.221.159.67 (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Edwinvandeb here having similarly added a port. I added with a cite of IANA itself which is the most authoritative source for content on this list but official ports should not each require a citation as reference to IANA as the ultimate citation is recognized in the summary of the entire article. IANA is the organization responsible for deciding what is or is not notable enough to be on this list. I would agree that notarity is relevant to this list but only insofar as the addition of unofficial but popular ports is concerned since you might reference wikipedia before using a port. An entity cannot/should not safely use IANA registered ports for anything but the registered purpose on any device globally running the TCP/IP stack any more than they can safely use IP space is that is not reserved for them and that is VERY notable information. As it is technical review team of IANA that makes the determination of whether or not a port merits reservation on the list and not the contact on the listing I fail to see the conflict of interest. The IANA listing and not the wikipedia listing makes the port and it's reserved function of note. Shaitand (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaitand: Wikipedia is not IANA and Wikipedia is not a database. I've explained the criteria for inclusion previously, so I am not going to reiterate it. I've reverted your re-addition of port 1232 with Special:Diff/749562677. There's already an external link to the IANA list for further information for ports lacking encyclopedic value. Please do not add the port back again without talk page consensus. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smd75jr: You have reverted me in Special:Diff/749562677 without explaining in your edit reason why. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @80.221.159.67: Apologies for the lack of explanation/reason. I feel that the information in question should be included as, despite this page not being the official IANA list, it is the first place many of us go for port listing information (it certainly is when I need to choose a port for something and want to avoid conflicts). The list here includes many ports that are not listed on the official IANA list which can make life MUCH simpler for many people. As long as the listing is properly sourced, I cant see any reason not to include it. Smd75jr (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smd75jr: The port in question has not been referenced to a third-party reliable source. Simply put, it fails WP:CSC. You may also want to take a look at how tens or hundreds of ports like these have already been removed, a list can be found on the talk page. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.221.159.67&oldid=749839293"