User talk:Intgr/Archive 4

I'm Back

After a 6 month absence from Wiki editing, I am finally back since work have slowed down once again. Leigao84 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Refactor?

[1] I didn't refactor anything, I was merely drawing Boothy's attention to my talk page in case he was not watching it. In fact, if you check WP:TALK, you'll see why what I did pales in comparison to what you did. As such, please explain why I should not revert your edit. Thanks. --Kbdank71 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, looks like this is the infamous MediaWiki diff bug again. This is what I was trying to revert: diff1 (screenshot), but the undo result is completely different: diff2. My apologies. -- intgr ^#%@! 05:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. Sorry, I didn't know there was a bug (I've been on a break for the last few months). No worries, then. --Kbdank71 13:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

EllisLab Notability

Greetings, intgr, and thanks for the welcome on my talk page! Perhaps you could comment on on this as you are the editor who has added the notability flag? I'm not sure what it's missing. And how can I fix the title of that article so that the first 'E' is uppercase? The links to the article all have the uppercase E, and the edit page shows the uppercase E, just the article page does not, so I am unsure if moving it will have any effect. Thanks! Djnafai 14:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your question about notability at Talk:EllisLab. As for capitalization, Wikipedia does not support article titles with initial lower case letters for technical reasons; however, the {{lowercase}} template makes the title appear lower case for users with JavaScript enabled (and this is already placed on the article).

All occurrences within the article text, and links from other articles, can simply be changed by editing that particular article. -- intgr ^#%@! 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"You can do this by piping category links. *Never* put redirect pages into categories"

Hi, a couple of comments on this edit/rv. First, you seem quite emphatic on the "never" there -- do you have a policy cite for that?

Second, please check how Category:Advanced Micro Devices products looks after this edit. You'll see that what the pipe does is place "X86-64" in the category list under "A". This is doubly undesirable since it puts the wrong name in the category list (a list of AMD products should have AMD product names), and it does so in an unalphabetically correct location.

Putting the redirect page into a category puts the proper name in the category, and I don't see any other way to do that. . Can you clarify why putting the redir in the category is a bad thing, since it accomplishes the desired result, and is apparently the only way to do so? Thanks--NapoliRoma 13:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"do you have a policy cite for that?"

Not really.

"You'll see that what the pipe does is place "X86-64" in the category list under "A""

Oh, you're right, category pipes only affect sorting. (There's a MediaWiki feature request for renaming category entries)

"Can you clarify why putting the redir in the category is a bad thing"

Because this behavior is not a common practice, and not intuitive. When editing the article page, it would no longer list all categories that include this article. I am not aware of any other pages which do this, so it will be unexpected behavior at least. I would bet that unaware people would periodically start re-adding this category to the x86-64 article; I think it's a better idea just avoid this problem for now.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to this, but I think it certainly warrants some discussion first (e.g., WP:PUMP) -- intgr ^#%@! 14:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no policy against doing this, and it improves the Wikipedia experience for readers, I'm going to be bold and reinstate it.

When you say "unexpected behavior", I actually see it as expected behavior for readers: in this example, someone looking at the list of AMD products will see a familiar name and can use the link to arrive to the expected content.

Where you're correct is that editors will not automatically see that the category link exists when editing the main article; this is easily addressed by putting a comment in the article. Again, I'm comfortable in erring on the side of the reader's experience over the editor's experience, especially when it's so easily mitigated.

If discussion turns up a good reason not to do this (and neither "let's avoid the problem" nor "no one else has done this" seem to be good reasons), I'd be glad to undo this and the other places where I've used the same solution in the past.--NapoliRoma 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It turns out this behavior is actually explicitly documented (and presumably thus condoned) at WP:REDIR#Creating a redirect :

Category-tags are not ignored. If a category is set, the redirect-page is listed in the category it belongs to[.]

Based on this, I believe WP:CAT should document this feature, including a suggested practice of adding a comment to the destination page. (This would be similar to the recommendation at Help:Section that if a page links to a section header, a comment should be added to the destination section indicating that it's a link title.)--NapoliRoma 19:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's for redirect-specific categories, e.g., Category:Unprintworthy redirects, Category:Redirects from misspellings, etc. — not for including the redirected articles within a category. -- intgr ^#%@! 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that here. Can you provide a cite that use of this feature is limited to redirect-specific categories, or that it is disallowed for including redirected articles in a category?--NapoliRoma 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I can not, but neither have you pointed out any precedents or pages suggesting this usage. I would prefer a wider discussion before doing something unusual like this. -- intgr ^#%@! 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did point out that WP:REDIR suggests this usage.

I encourage you to continue to research the issue, but can I suggest there not be any further reverts until something with at least the same standing as WP:REDIR is found that counsels against using this feature? If you truly are not fundamentally opposed to this, and we've found a document that says the feature does exist, and we've also found no documents saying there are limitations to using this feature, this would seem the appropriate thing to do.--NapoliRoma 22:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care enough to do anything about it. WP:REDIR does state that redirects can be categorized, but they are currently only used for categorizing redirects themselves, not for renaming category entries. -- intgr ^#%@! 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is at least one reply too many on my part, I know, but... I did find an example, again within the documentation itself.

If you look at the oft-mentioned WP:REDIR#Creating a redirect , you'll see the example given, m:Template:ddd, belongs to m:Category:Math recycle bin, and this category list contains a mix of both direct pages and redirects.

So, sorry for taking this so far -- I hope neither of us got too burned out on this one.--NapoliRoma 23:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Burned out? I've been yawning at it; sorry if I caused you any unnecessary stress. :) Happy editing. -- intgr ^#%@! 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi, intgr. An article I originally wrote on Unify Corporation was tagged by you with the 'importance' tag. Can you please recheck and make sure I addressed the suggestions for that tag and remove it if you believe it's adequate (or offer suggestions on improvement)? I'm a subject-matter expert on this company. If there's somewhere else I should be asking, please let me know! --Rkuris 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for adoption

Hi Intgr I am looking for assistance on posting a large database (at least 800 entries) on Czech gardens onto Wikipedia. The database has already been created and I think this type of information transfer would require a bot? I have never used wikipedia before and am hoping you will be willing to help me navigate through everything. I am not asking you to write the bot necessarily but if you are interested great. If you think there is a better way to go about getting this information onto wikipedia I would like to know about this also. I read a little about mediawiki but there is a lot of information to wade through. I will wait for your response before I go into more details. --Stromek 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure I would be willing to cooperate, but first, what exactly does this database contain? I wouldn't think that most databases could satisfy Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines, because databases and encyclopedias serve very different purposes. Have you read what Wikipedia is not and are you sure that this information is useful for an encyclopedia in the first place? -- intgr ^#%@! 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The database is a record of individual historic gardens in the Czech Republic, the locations of the gardens, the historical significance, the dates etc. The aim is to have an entry for historic Czech gardens where someone could choose from a list and then find out more about each individual garden OR to have a separate entry for each individual garden. I think that this type of information is suitable for an encyclopedia don't you? The database was created to organize all the current information into one place. I am trying to find the easiest way to make all the information that is now condensed into one database available on wikipedia without having to make a separate entry for each garden.--Stromek 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot redundant edits with {{subst:fact}}

Hi, just letting you know...

Thanks, the rules-base needs refactoring.... Rich Farmbrough, 16:02 5 June 2007 (GMT).

Reading material

Regards, El_C 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The given link does not provide any additional information on the topic, and quite obviously does not conform to WP:EL. Spam or not, this link is irrelevant to Wikipedia. The choice of linking to binsearch.info is completely arbitrary; if Wikipedia were to include all relevant search engines, it would degrade into a link directory (and I just got rid of that part of the article). -- intgr ^#%@! 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is the only functional nzb search engine, so one could argue for its usefulnes, even if not in a, say, shcolarly sense. El_C 22:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The search engine does not even appear to be notable (all I can find on Google are blogs and forums), so I would err on the side of promotion — and it's not the only one. -- intgr ^#%@! 22:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked that link. Sorry about that. El_C 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why our readers cannot be offered a mechanism to search for and retrieve nzb files. El_C 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a link directory, and because the choice of linking to binsearch.info alone is arbitrary and spammish. And even if we let this link stay there then it's an invitation for everyone to add his own favorite search engine, which will turn the article into a link directory. -- intgr ^#%@! 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Except a directory implies more than one. Again, to my knowledge this is the only functional resource of its kind. El_C 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not. -- intgr ^#%@! 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. We can always add that open directory instead, then. El_C 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why didn't that occur to me. :) -- intgr ^#%@! 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know why it didn't occur to me: I thought there was only one! El_C 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fusebox article

Thanks for your comments on the Fusebox_(programming) article for wikify and notability. The article has been wikified some more, restructuring and reordering text into sections so it has a better intro and table of contents. Also added are some external links to references on adobe.com, sys-con and builder.com which probably ought to be worked into the main text to better satisfy the notability criteria. Let me know if your concerns are now addressed. Thanks! Michael614 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Tweedie

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Stephen Tweedie, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 16:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unusual Adoption Request

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter

Cryptography article disambig naming, examples/voting

We are currently discussing cryptography disambig naming at the talk page of WikiProject Cryptography. Naming like Tiger (hash). I would value your comments/input on the matter. --David Göthberg 05:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you help me get userboxes on my page?

Can you please help or teach me how to put userboxes on my userpage--The K.O. King

Thanks

Thankyou for the help.--The K.O. King —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The K.O. King (talk • contribs) 16:35, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Hello,

When you'd scribed your comment, were you planning on a response to your response??

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

SMART

Could you be more specific about why the section titled "SMART Information" that you deleted from Self-Monitoring,_Analysis,_and_Reporting_Technology is out of scope for Wikipedia? I think an article about SMART should attempt to explain what information SMART provides to the user, at least in a general way. Geoffk01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffk01 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I never deleted anything from the article; I reviewed all my edits in the article's history and couldn't find it. If you think I did, can you please point to the particular edit?

Or if you're asking about the copy-to-Wikibooks tag then the accompanying comment sums up my opinion:

Some of this should probably be kept on Wikipedia, but the huge "Known S.M.A.R.T. attributes" section looks like purely original research, reads like a manual and gives advice -- contrary to WP:NOT, so it's out of the scope for Wikipedia

Since this section is actually very informative (and I think unique on the Internet), it should clearly not be deleted; I think Wikibooks is a pretty appropriate place for it all. -- intgr ^#%@! 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the change of 19 August 2007 was much more than you wanted, perhaps you started from an old version of the page? On the history page you can see the article went from 26,779 bytes before your change to 22,712 bytes immediately afterwards. It looks like you also removed some spelling and grammar improvements, some additional information added, some dates on fact markers, a cross-reference to the Norwegian version of the article, and some other stuff. I'll try to back out all of your change except for the copy-to-Wikibooks part. Geoffk01 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done this, please look at the page and see if it's what you expected. Geoffk01 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, indeed, I caused quite a mess there; I suppose I was accidentally editing an earlier revision (should be more careful in the future). Thanks for noticing this and cleaning up after me! -- intgr ^#%@! 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: AWB "cleanups"

Hi, Sorry for that, I didnt read the page. I've just been approved and didnt think to read all of thr pages. just our of curiousity, how did you see that all my edits were "Cleanup..." --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

One of your edits popped up on my watchlist; I diffed it and then checked a few edits on your contributions page. -- intgr [talk] 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, Ill be sure not to make large quantities of trivial edits in the future. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Habit (psychology) and Habituation

I don't need to be lectured at when I've already spent hours doing exactly what you asked. I needed to defend my efforts from the attack of the Quick-Delete squad. You COULD have taken a look at what I've done on my contributions page. DCDuring 18:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you wanted to say with that comment. -- intgr [talk] 19:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, too, about being crabby. I'd been up well into the wee hours - working to save my efforts from speedy deletion. It's still early days at Habit (psychology), but I've been working to identify how the word is used in WP articles to make sure that I accomplish what I have said I'm going to do. (See Talk:Habit (psychology) DCDuring 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Automated Edits

Hello. Please be careful not to correct typos inside other editors comments. This is considered bad form. Best regards, Navou ^banter 13:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, I reverted the edit before you managed to tell me about it. ;) -- intgr [talk] 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spell check

of the counterpart theory article of mine. --RickardV 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Message you sent to me sailorman2003

You said that I removed something valuable from the page. I have no idea what you are referring to. I wrote most of the original article and 8/23 made a small edit that reverted a paragraph to the original version. That was the only change I have made in months. If I did remove something, I would appreciate you giving me some specifics so that I wont do it again. Eric 12:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I was complaining about your removal of the maintenance templates in this edit. I intended to add a notice specifically about removing maintenance templates, but apparently that has been replaced with a useless generic "you removed some stuff" message while I was away from Wikipedia; sorry for the confusion.

Removing templates without a good edit summary and a prior discussion on the talk page is very bad practice. Various discussions on the article's talk page have agreed that the virtual memory article is currently very poor: it makes absolutely no distinction between virtual memory and swap; these terms are interchanged and misunderstood too widely already (thanks Microsoft and Apple!), so it only confuses newbies even more. -- intgr [talk] 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Gibson article

I'm inclined to revert your change, which dilutes "invented by" to "generally attributed to". Numerous reliable independent sources affirm the invention; I don't see any that contest it.

--- tqbf 19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I reverted my edit. -- intgr [talk] 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cache vs buffer

See Talk:Cache, let's continue there. --Kubanczyk 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

a new user

I'm really interested in the Portuguese language. Just put a watch on my user page and talk page, and you are well on your way!! :)

learnportuguese 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got the faintest clue why you have contacted me. I don't even know how to say "I don't speak Portuguese" in Portuguese. -- intgr [talk] 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

JkDefrag

Thanks for helping to improve the article and tidying up the references. It is much appreciated, especially by a newbie such as myself. --RitaSkeeter 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I expected that you would dislike throwing out a part of your work. -- intgr [talk] 01:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-gravity

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you review...

I have just updated the DMZ (computing) page from a stub. I noticed that you seem to be active in the Computer area. Could you review the article and make sure it is up to wikipedia standards. Thanks. Jasonlfunk 15:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RfD on Lignux

Hi,

I've proposed that this redirect you created should be deleted. It's of purely historical value and searching for it will get the reader to an appropriate page anyway. Chris Cunningham 12:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

CryptoHeaven

I think the section on CryptoHeaven about defeating RIPA/Patriot was very relevant (because there are people that seek such service for this very reason) and true even in cases where private key is stored encrypted on the server. As long as the password is strong enough the data cannot be read in clear. For those extra cautious, there is always the option not to send the encrypted private key to the server. Government citing RIPA/Patriot could request this encrypted key from admins running the service assuming it was within their jurisdiction which most likely it wouldn't be given servers run from Canada, but even when someone would manage to get such encrypted key, good luck breaking AES256 to read it in clear. Please comment. M7193 02:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:CryptoHeaven. -- intgr [talk] 09:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bitmap indexes

By their very nature, they are only really good for equality and boolean operations. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ceph

Hello Intgr, thank you for your contribution to the Ceph page. Now with the articles in LWN and Kerneltrap the page got some notability. If you're interested the last (not small) page that I wrote that got deleted as blatant advertising is now included for reference in my talk page. --JerkerNyberg (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaporware

I am not adding content, I am restoring your bad faith purging of the list. All blue link articles can have their references cut and pasted into the article, and that Google thing can be used to generate references. You have made no good faith effort to find references yourself, after your failed deletion vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with bad faith, but the fact that the article violates Wikipedia's all three core content policies (as enumerated earlier: WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). Have a look at WP:V#Burden of evidence, in particular Jimmy's quote:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Claiming that something is "vaporware" is a pretty serious accusation, one that an encyclopedia shouldn't be throwing around carelessly. This is the reason people have a problem taking Wikipedia seriously. -- intgr [talk] 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

JFS (file system) and bitmap capability

Hi Intgr. I saw your revert on JFS (file system) (diff); good job. But don't forget this one. Since I know very little about filesystems in general and nothing about JFS in particular, I decided to let both those edits go.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Userbar

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Userbar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Image uploads

I uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons and proposed the Wikipedia ones for deletion, but the links and the categories on each file's page still link to Wikipedia articles/categories. Will they automatically translate to valid links when used by Wikipedia articles? --Wooptoo (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; once the images are deleted from Wikipedia, it will automatically fetch the page from Commons. -- intgr [talk] 21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging refs

I added the source for the reiserfs BKL claim, but noticed that the ref is already there (now ref [2] is the same as ref [4], content-wise). Is there a way to reuse refs, so that "[2]" is shown in the text multiple times? -j.engelh (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You can (and I've already done so on the ReiserFS article) by assigning names to references and later referencing them by name. For details, see WP:FOOT#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once. Thanks for complying with Wikipedia policies! -- intgr [talk] 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrus Ansip

Hi, the CPSU link on Andrus Ansip is correct. According to his own bio (referenced in the article) he was a Party instructor between 1986 and 1988. I had made the same mistake as you in removing the link, then put it back a few minutes later, but I'm not otherwise involved with the article. Moyabrit (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's continue this at Andrus Ansip#Communist party entry in infobox to keep the relevant discussion together. -- intgr [talk] 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Computer science tagging

Ok I'm gonna fix that. 16@r (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks :) -- intgr [talk] 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

CenterIM OTR support

If you download the sources of the latest version (4.22.2), untar it and open ChangeLog. In the section "Changes since 4.21.0" you will find "experimental libotr support". I am using centerim and it works without problems so far. Boelthorn (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see, I have put it back. -- intgr [talk] 04:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AxCrypt

You were right, axcrypt is a folder/file encryptor, not a full disk encryption program. Family Guy Guy (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cat question

• Category:User space file systems

I've read the intro several times, and I'm still not sure what this is/includes. Could you further clarify? - jc37 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the explanation, hopefully it makes more sense now? :)

If it doesn't, it would be helpful if you explained at Category talk:User space file systems what you find confusing. -- intgr [talk] 14:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the expansion. I think I understand now. And I'm glad that my confusion led to a further learning about something that I'm also interested in : ) - jc37 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

SharingZone

Hi, I also added the maintenance templates to the article SharingZone... again. - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Flexive

Hello Intgr,

you marked Flexive for notability. I tried to do my best rewriting the article and adding references where appropriate. Since [fleXive] is supposed to be written in squarebrackets I put all occurances in nowiki tags and removed the notability tag you added. If you however do feel there is still something missing please contact me and I'll try to further improve the article.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexive (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)