User talk:Old Death

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz...

• My contribs
• Shareaza
• Gnutella2
• Template:Gnutella2

Before undoing my edit, please consider the following:

• the same reasoning applied for the removal of the original edonkey client
• the original edonkey client is still functional and can be downloaded from many sites
• even if lphant remained on the comparison page, the current state of the lphant.com website and more importantly the current state of the wikipedia article on lphant would confuse the reader to download the new version

I respect your efforts in the lphant article, but I still think you haven't managed to disambiguate between the original 3.51 version and the fake discordia version.

If however, you insist on reverting back, please add the word "original" before "lphant" as well as a ref tag to make clear that you refer to the original 3.51 and not the client offered at the lphant.com site (without linking to lphant.com)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.150.66 (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. User:Deathmolor has been trying to add a program called 'linker' to the timeline, along with the claim that it, and not napster, was the first real peer to peer file sharing program.[1] He's also been removing sources for the statement that napster was first. I don't think that this is correct, and on the talk page he's stated that he and friends either developed or were discussing this program, so I think this is probably a WP:VANITY edit, and a conflict of interest. Would you mind checking out his refs, so that I could get a second opinion on this?   M  22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i also believe M to only be contributing in one topic and have reason to believe his interest is solely on establishing Napster as the first p2p application which has been established in many many wiki articles that it is not even close to the first nor is it even p2p at all. All sources are factual and the software is called "linker34" specifically as the word linker if searched for would result in many sources obviously M is interested in obscuring the name of the product so to muddy the water in his arguments favor. M's only contributions to wiki are in the area of p2p file sharing and followups on rules to support his standing in that area. He has interest in no other area and obviously has some hidden motive to continue to pursue this in the face of overwhelming numbers of sources including USENET sources going back over a decade from the original authors. Now he wants to do an end run by coming here. Deathmolor (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll check this, but since I've also read in many articles and also in one printed book that Napster was the first one, I really doubt this linker34 story. Also, Deathmolor if you are really developping (or your friends are developping) this application, you should not add it to the wiki, as this would be against the rules. As for your statement about M, consider that everything you said against him is also true for me: most of my contirbutions are to topics about or linked to P2P. All my other contributions are normally only spelling fixes etc.

Anyway, I'll check your sources and report back if they are conform to the wiki standards...

Old Death (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also, please keep in mind that most of what Deathmolor is saying about me here and on those pages in an attempt to 'discredit' me is simply not true.   M  16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make all of these changes? Bpringlemeir (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the gnutella article talk page

mfg, OldDeath - 13:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask an admin, or look here. I guess that doesn't have wiki formatting. Bpringlemeir (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the advice, I already wrote on the talk page of the admin who deleted the article...

mfg, OldDeath - 21:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a C++ programmer, and I haven't contribute for the main code of any eD2k client project so far. But I'm a Chinese translator of some eMule Mods and an editor of a Chinese eMule/eD2k/P2P blog emulefans.com. Sometimes I also contribute some little stuff, like MorphXT's new country flags, a wordpress plugin, etc.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you relinked a date fragment here. Kindly note that the practice of linking these is no longer encouraged unless there is good reason that the target will enhance the understanding of the article itself. I would refer you to WP:Linking for further information. Happy editing, and thanks for your attention. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but good old habits aren't given up easily... I myself was one of those opposing that change, BTW :)

PLZ note that it was not "intentional" that I linked that date :P

mfg, OldDeath - 16:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Soft redirects may be used internally within the Wiki. See the guideline + common sense in this case". Ummm. What guideline says that? The only one I know of on the subject of soft redirects is Wikipedia:Soft redirect. The only internal use mentioned there that I see is as an invite to create a new article. That does not at all fit the situation of the given case. So, since there's nothing at Wikipedia:Soft redirect that supports the internal use in this case, I'm not really sure what guideline you could be referring to.

Similarly, to me, common sense says that using a tool in a way that it is not supposed to be used is improper, and should be changed to the proper tool. Hard redirects are the standard way of handling internal links, not soft redirects. So I'm sorry, but IMHO I do not see common sense on your side in this argument either. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking at the same thing from such different perspectives I felt it better to get a wider view of the situation. So I am attempting to start up a discussion at the soft redirect talk page. Please come join in there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Old Death

To be frank, pricing model is the core and the most significant part of software license, if not all of it. But to be accurate, a software license is about:

1. Price (Free, one-time payment, subscription-based, etc.)
2. Location of use (The number of computers, authorized computers, etc.)
3. Purpose of use (Non-commercial, enterprise, etc.)
4. Rights (Installing, running, disassembling, reverse-engineering, etc.)
5. Period of use (Temporary or indefinite)
6. Other obligations

Not long ago, the freeware article said that freeware does not refer to free software or free and open source software. Now, it is modified to include both. Still, even now in Wikipedia, we don't categorize libre or open-source software into freeware categories or vice versa. See Category:Windows-only freeware. It does not include any Windows-only free (libre) software.

Fleet Command (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is included, both (it being proprietary and free) should be included in the infobox, not only one of them...

mfg, OldDeath - 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the Soft Redirect editing guideline, trying to clarify when it is acceptable to use soft redirects for internal links. Since you were on the opposite side from me when this last erupted, around a year ago, I'm welcoming you to come by and help edit the new section to be as widely acceptable as possible. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Old Death,

We are working on a group project for our “Online Communities” class at Cornell University, where we are aiming to become active contributors to the Wikipedia community. We have picked the “Peer to Peer” page and saw that you have been a contributor in the past. We would like to propose the following restructuring of the article and would appreciate any feedback/advice you have for us:

1. Historical Development 2. Current Applications a. Communications

   Other P2P Applications

b. Content Delivery c. File Sharing Networks

       i. Streaming Media

3. Architecture

   a. Routing and Resource Recovery
       i. Hybrid Models
       ii. Structured Networks
       iii. Unstructured Networks

   b. Security and Trust
       i. Routing Attacks
       ii. Corrupted Data and Malware
   c. Creating more resilient and scalable computer networks
   d. Distributed storage and search

4. Social Implications a. Demographics and Usage stats b. Incentivizing resource sharing and cooperation c. Privacy and Anonymity d. Economic Implications

   i. Music/Film

5. Political Implications

   a. Network Politics
   b. Network neutrality
   c. Intellectual Property law and illegal sharing

6. Current Research

   a. Future Trends

Please let us know what you think about this restructuring as a way to improve the article. We will also be looking to add sources and information. We welcome any feedback! Thank you!

AlyssaG92 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you have collected there seems clearly to be an improvement in the structure of the article. So you have my support there.

BTW, using # at the beginning of a line will give you a cleaner look for what you've posted above:

1. line 1
2. line 2
   1. line2b
      1. line 2b1
      2. line 2b2
3. line 3

And if you would like to cancel Wiki formatting in a line starting with a space, you can always use a non breaking one:  

                       This line starts with non breaking spaces

mfg, OldDeath - 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CHIP-Computer-Magazine-Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you seem to be mistaken. It is currently being used here: Chip (magazine) mfg, OldDeath - 23:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Old Death/Sharelin, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Old Death/Sharelin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Old Death/Sharelin during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Old Death. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Old Death. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Old Death, I assume that mfg stands for (our) German greeting "Mit freundlichen Grüßen". I know in this (English) WP there is an ambiguation page for MFG, and there it is mentioned/eplained, but I 'm wondering wether this meaning is known to the majority of English speaking readers. Do you know anything about this? The reason why I 'm asking this is, that I imagine all readers who do not know this meaning, will have to search for it. I know friendliness is a rare good, but in this case it would give readers some additional work to do. Steue (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article FileScope has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SOFTWARE. Software abandoned in 2014 which lacked any sources reporting on it even when it was supported.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Sharelin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Sharelin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Anton.bersh (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FileScope is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FileScope until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Anton.bersh (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/Ares Galaxy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]