Rurik

Rurik

			Contributions by Month
Home	Talk	Contribs	Edit Count	eMail	Sandbox

Welcome to my talk page. If you want to leave me a message, click here!

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rurik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -SCEhardT 03:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Computer forensics

Hi. The forensicswiki.org is different from the Saunderson wiki. Please don't revert the dit.

Thank you for your message, but I believed that it is misdirected at the wrong person. I did not revert any edits dealing with those links, and I do heartily agree that both forensicswiki.org and forensicswiki.com be represented. Rurik 01:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Aberdeen, Maryland

Hi, thanks for the correction on this page - Belcamp is certainly closer to Aberdeen than Edgewood. But now that I look more closely (and as I recall the area from my youth), Perryman is even closer - 4.4 miles vs. 4.9 miles. Any objection to my making the change? Thanks --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a random hello

Hi there! Want to work on some article(s) together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel T (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Since the user in question has demonstrated an apparent hostility (if that's not too strong a word) to Custom car, is evidently of the belief any edits from me somehow constitute a claim of "ownership", has effectively suggested any adds from me are grounds for suicide, & has been really mature when he doesn't get his way, I don't feel too inclined to give him the rope to do the same again. Nevertheless, I'm done. If the pix get deleted, you will know who to give the "credit" to. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 12:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm coming to realize it was petty of me. I guess I was taking it personally. (I couldn't see any other reason, & he didn't seem inclined to offer one.) I wrote off Custom car as a lost cause, based on the response I got from the majority (judge by the talk page for yourself); I'm making no further effort on it. If you're inclined to fix it, tho, once the protect is lifted, I can offer some prelim work I did. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Twenty-Fourth Air Force article

Rurik, The twenty-fourth Air Force article says "when activated, it is planned to inherit the lineage, history and heraldry of the Air Force Communications Agency." I believe this to be incorrect, do you have a source for this? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Switty23 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This was an item added long ago in the article [1]. I believe that with the recent decisions, this no longer holds true. At least, it should be removed until it can be rejustified. Copying this to your talk page, too. Rurik (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rurik! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Switty23 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

List of warez groups

thanks for your help cleaning up the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingrin87 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FireGPG

I agree with your removal of the FireGPG from the List of Firefox extensions. I found it surprising that the AfD would recommend merging an extension deemed not notable enough for its own article into that list. C'est la vie. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Vuze

Rurik, I removed the discussion we were having regarding Vuze. I honestly thought the site would be of sufficient value to readers with strong software engineering backgrounds that it would be appropriate to provide a link to it. However, your policies are what they are. It is pointless to battle with you over them.Softwaresavant (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Softwaresavant, I'm sorry that the edits occurred this way, but it is to protect Wikipedia from commercial interests. I'm simply an editor here and try to keep the content neutral based upon the rules and guidelines. If you would like a second opinion, feel free to use the Editor Assistance to have someone else verify the contents and determine if it is appropriate to the article and, if so, how to best implement it into the text. If another editor intervenes, I will avoid further edits. Rurik (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Rurik, I would like to continue the discussion here - rather on the more public pages. Softwaresavant (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• The site contains generated documentation for more 50,000,000 lines of open source code for 200 of the most popular systems. The goal of this site is to document all the most widely used open source software systems. We have the generation capacity to add 300 portals a day and will be ramping up to thousands of sites as soon as have added the remote hosting capacity.
• The purpose of the site is to meet the need for publicly available high quality documentation and software quality assurance metrics for open source software projects.
• The absence of high quality documentation for open source software is a very serious problem - a problem which Gartner Group has identified as one of the biggest obstacles impeding open source software adoption. This site provides uniform documentation without any purchase of any kind. The open source proejct buy and large could not afford to purcase this documentation if they had to purchase it.
• The absence of software quality assurance merics for open source software is a serious problem with open soruce software. Very few open source projects projects provide any QA metrics on the merits of their software : complexity, redundancy, states, paths, fan-in, fan-out, LOC metrics per unit, etc.
• The site is free. The users are granted complete and unlimted access to the intermediate pages, full unlimited acces to the lite version - which gives the user access to structure charts and hypertext of the code and a google-like search engine.
• Users are premitted 7-days of completely free access to any 'full' portal. It is like checking a book out of the library. Return it within 7-days and there is no fee for continued use.
• The site is an unparalleled unbiased resource for the world's open source software developers and users. The technology used for documentation generation is unbiased. It does not favor one project over any other. There is no skewing of the QA reports or analysis for any reason.
• The documentation generation engine has been used on large numbers of mission critical software projects, such as the European Air Taffic Control System, US Ballistic Missile Warning System, and many other projects for the federal government, US military and commercial modernization projects.
• The wikipedia guidelines sanction linkage to sites that are directly complementary to the content of any article. In this case the link we wish to place in the External Links sections gives the article reader access to 2 to 3 gigabytes (on average) of complementary QA metrics and detailed design documentation. The value of the information content is very high. Had it been generated as a project deliverable the price would be bedtween $.30/line and $.45/line. For a system like Eclipse which is 1.9 Million lines of code the price would be $850,000.
• The only issue with the link I inserted, according to your guidelines, seems to be that there is a 'conflict of interest' concern because I, as the creator of the site, inserted it: "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent — even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked."
• The sole issue in this situation is the 'conflict of interest' issue. There seems to be no other questions of relevance of the contents to the article by any other of your published criteria.

• The site is a blended access site. Its contents are completely accessible to the casual users. Fees only apply after extended continuous use.
• Subscription is not madatory. It is voluntary. Only super serious users will opt in for a continued subscription, and only if their usage of the site exceeds 7 days.
• All other users are granted full free and open accessiblity to the contents in an unrestricted fashion.
• The value of content as measured by the cost to produce it, if it were a deliverable of a commercial basis, is extraordinarily high.
• The value to the individual projects taht are being documented is extraordinarily high. If they had to pay for the creation of this resource, not a one of them could afford it.

.Softwaresavant (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwaresavant (talk • contribs) 05:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Softwaresavant, unfortunately I cannot be of any assistance to you in this matter. Wikipedia has guidelines in place to avoid it from becoming a directory of links to every website and company for each article. Each link is separately measured to ensure its notability and ensure that it gives a benefit to the article. Your business, and it's overall offerings, do not fall in-line with the basic information presented in the various OSS articles. The more appropriate way to be added to these pages is to be a source of information for a detail that is currently on the page, and be cited as a reference, since your business is not notable in the actual usage and development of the tool itself. Your addition to Knowledge Discovery Metamodel seems more appropriate. A COI is raised because you are affiliated with the website and are introducing it into the article. You stand to profit from the site's inclusion in the article, and the attempts are treated as advertisements. This is opposite from the standard guidelines where an unknown third-party adds your page because of its notability to the subject at hand. I cannot help you with having your site included into the software articles. However, again, I am just an independent editor here; I'm even employed by one of your company's customers. You should use the internal Wikipedia assistance system to work with someone and find an appropriate way to implement your information into Wikipedia. Rurik (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The addition to the KDM page was because as an OMG platform member, TSRI is obligated to support the KDM with product or services offerings. Our open source Blueprinting Portals are an instance of the ADM Portfolio Analysis Modernization scenario and implementations of the OMG's ASTM, KDM and SMM specifications. TSRI is similarly obligated to provide product and services support for the ASTM (The Abstract Syntax Tree Metamodel) and the SMM (Software Metrics Metamodel) because of commitments we made during our our participation in the development of those OMG specifications. TSRI's open source Hypermodel Software Blueprint portals project is the first manifestation of a significant offering by any company that supports all three of these OMG specifications (to the best of my knowledge). I am personally the principal author of the ASTM - and wrote most of the ASTM RFP and most of the ASTM Spec. I suppose, given that there is a KDM wiki entry, it follows that an ASTM wiki page, and an SMM wiki page are both appropriate for wikipeida? Another question, I am cochairing the Architecture Driven Modernization Case Studies Workshop (ADMCSW) - which is sponsored by the OMG. Is a wikipedia entry on the ADMCSW appropriate? The ADMCSW is under the aegis of the ADMTF (ADM task force) which oversees the development of the OMGs Architecture Driven Modernization (for which there is a wiki page) specifications. Can the ADMCSW case studies papers or synopses of those case studies be put on an ADM or a separate ADMCSW wiki. For example one of the case studies documents the modernization the European Air Traffic Management System (EATMs) - which will be deployed in 2010. (scoop - you heard it hear first) I am delighted to hear you work for a company that is one of our customers.Softwaresavant (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a subject matter expert in this field, so I cannot really judge the overall notability of a new article, if one doesn't exist. From your basic description, it sounds like a topic that would be worth detailing in an article here. The best way to find out is to create the content and publish it into an article, following some of the guidelines at WP:Your_first_article. You can also have the text proofed and posted through WP:Articles_for_creation. Rurik (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Long (musician)

Just curious - are you writing an article for him? Chubbles (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to attempt to research a bit to create one, though that is not my normal field of study. At the very least, to create a red link to encourage someone else to step up until I get to it, and to disambiguate him from the other active Johnny Long article here. Rurik (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good start - [2] Chubbles (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Great link, thank you. Rurik (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Good edit on Home theater PC‎

Good call on removing that largish section dedicated to the over-detailed Apple related stuff. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 16:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Paid moodle hosting providers

It is difficult to cite sources for feature that does not exist. No free Moodle hosting provider says that they do not offer SLA or guarantee data security for content created by educators.

I am a teacher, I provide tuitions in Physics to pre-engineering students in India. Recently, I tried a free hosting service - Ninehub. Due to some fault I lost all my content for one of the courses. I have written them using their online contact form - http://ninehub.com/contact.php. I have not received any reply. During sign-up they don't provide any kind of agreement leave alone SLA or guarantee of data security so legally they are not obliged to do anything. This is extremely frustrating because lot of my work and my students work was lost. Thereafter, I have tried a paid service which works very fine and they have excellent support. I think it will be great piece of advice/information of other interested educators.

Incase, you know any free moodle hosting that provides SLA and guarantee of data security please include it on wiki page for moodle. That will also be great information for educators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohdeepak (talk • contribs) 18:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you're making a very large generalization about hosting providers in saying that no free provider offers SLAs. There's no way to prove or disprove this, so it shouldn't be added into the article. With a product like Moodle, writing an SLA becomes difficult. While they could guarantee the hardware uptime, it may be on the user to manually backup your data within Moodle on a regular basis. While I can empathize on your struggle, since I teach online courses as well, what it comes down to is that the material isn't appropriate for that article. The Moodle article is about the software application, with only a single line about hosting it (since most locations host it internally). If the article starts making a difference between paid and free services, the fork will only continue into a comparison of hosting services, which would be just spam and advertisements for such services. That line of discussion is best for the Moodle forums. Rurik (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Rice burner

So the WP:3RR line has been crossed on Rice burner, and I don't see the point. The entire article is crying out for just one reliable source to back up anything in it, and you and that other guy are bickering over what is nothing but your personal opinions. Please stop edit warring, and instead, please, do some research. Put something in the article that can be verified and has a citation to go with it.--Dbratland (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Long (Ihackstuff)

I'm interested in "rating" Johnny Longs' wikipedia page. What would you class it as? A "Stub" for being his biography page. Then what would you class the rest of his page? A "C, Low?". I am relatively new at rating pages, I have only rated about 3 pages in the last 6 months. Hope to have some of your input on this. Adamdaley (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What should be included is when he was born and his current age. Since it would be his "Biography". Understand what I'm asking? Hope to hear from you soon and thanks for a reply! Adamdaley (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Firefox extensions

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Firefox extensions. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Firefox extensions (2nd nomination). 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.

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. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rurik. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)