User talk: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!

This is Rurik's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

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! -SCEhard T 03:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.
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. 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 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 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 - and 7-day free access to the content of the full version.
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. There is no skewing of the QA reports or analysis for any reason. Documentation generation engine which 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 more than of 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 the article. In this case the link in the External Links sections gives the 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.

Subscription is not madatory. It is voluntary.
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.
There are no permission or restrictions to access.
There is no restriction to full free and open access to the contents of the site.Softwaresavant (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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