Talk:ASCEND

Latest comment: 7 years ago by RobbieIanMorrison in topic Opening sentence unclear

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ASCEND. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Opening sentence unclear edit

The opening sentence states

ASCEND is the GC on November 3, 2016, open source, mathematical modelling system developed at Carnegie Mellon University since late 1978

. What on earth is GC? Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

@RobbieIanMorrison: This apparently meaningless text was added to this article in November 2016. Should we peer review this article to prevent future incidents of vandalism like this one? Jarble (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Jarble (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hello Jarble. Thanks for your response. It seems that this kind of vandalism has occurred only once on this article and my instinct is that the threshold for placing it under peer review has not been met. Furthermore, the vandalism was detected through normal processes and quite quickly too. I am not skilled in dealing with abuse on Wikipedia though, so if you want to request the page be placed under peer review, then please go ahead. By the way, the page still needs fixing. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply