| Revision as of 04:57, 9 February 2012 editJohnsmith4092 (talk | contribs)16 edits →IPv6 Privacy Controversy/Concerns← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:38, 9 February 2012 edit undo203.99.208.3 (talk) →SORRY: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
| Yes it does. It says, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection," which essentially means the same thing. It means that the software is not "only" focusing on viruses and spyware as it was, but is focusing on the broader issue of malware now. What I wrote had the same meaning, but was clearer. I would like to compromise, though. I am going to remove the redundant expressions (change malware software to malware because of my reasons stated above) and not touch that part. One more thing, though; above, you aid that my source was not relevant. The source I used was to cite the statement about what anti-malware focuses on removing (that it and malware itself includes viruses and spyware), and is quite relevant. ] (]) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | Yes it does. It says, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection," which essentially means the same thing. It means that the software is not "only" focusing on viruses and spyware as it was, but is focusing on the broader issue of malware now. What I wrote had the same meaning, but was clearer. I would like to compromise, though. I am going to remove the redundant expressions (change malware software to malware because of my reasons stated above) and not touch that part. One more thing, though; above, you aid that my source was not relevant. The source I used was to cite the statement about what anti-malware focuses on removing (that it and malware itself includes viruses and spyware), and is quite relevant. ] (]) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *Besides the grammar, nothing's wrong. You may add but not ''replace'' something with the source.] ] 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | *Besides the grammar, nothing's wrong. You may add but not ''replace'' something with the source.] ] 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == SORRY == | |||
| Dear Jasper, your talk page is not editable. So, i'm putting this here - I'm really sorry for whatever I said. If I could, I would take back all the things I said to hurt you. But since I can’t, please make do with my apologies. I won’t quit until you accept my apology. You are the kindest person I have met. Forgive me I'm a fool. The future of anon-registered user relationship hangs on this note of apology! Please accept it. Take my hand and guide me. Take my apology and forgive me. You are as sweet as honey. You are as bright as the sun. If you accept my apology, you’ll be my number 1. Let’s put things back as they were! I am sorry. ] (]) 06:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:38, 9 February 2012
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
This is my talk page for non-autoconfirmed or unregistered users. This page is, however, frequently protected and sometimes is taken down for cleanup for short periods of time.
Please click "New section" above to start a new discussion. Keep discussion inside the section you made.
Administrators: If you find vandalism to this page and it's long-term abuse, please revdelete or selectively delete it.
dns forgery
It is rediculous, you have removed my change, which precisely stated "some", argumenting it does contain "many". Please read what you remove before any removal next time. --ser— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serek (talk • contribs)
- No, in your edit summary you clearly said "many". Besides, DNSSEC is only for DNS. Are you, in any way, related to DNSCurve?Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- It shows you do not read changes, but only summaries. No, I am not related in any way, and I find your assumption offending, as you suggest I am not objective. --ser— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serek (talk • contribs)
- Because it seems that you were trying to promote DNSCurve at the cost of DNSSEC (WP:AGF - please don't make comments like "you don't read"), a technology that does not at all deserve the weight you've been putting on it (the point of view is directly proportional to media coverage).Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It shows you do not read changes, but only summaries. No, I am not related in any way, and I find your assumption offending, as you suggest I am not objective. --ser— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serek (talk • contribs)
Black Friday
I apologize for the recent vandalism to the article 'Black Friday (shopping)' however I congratulate you on your speedy correction at only two minutes since the change. I am currently writing an article for a university magazine about the accuracy of wikipedia articles for use as research. and my reason for vandalism was simply a test at response time. once again I apologize for the malicious act, and I would like to tell you that you have helped me prove a very valid point about the validity of wikipedia as a source of knowledge
LibreOffice.
Hello Jasper Deng,
Why did you remove the links to my video tutorial series of LibreOffice Calc and LibreOffice Writer. Although I am not affiliated with The Document Foundation, My video tutorial series are very good. Anyone interested in learning more about LibreOffice Calc or LibreOffice Writer will find them useful.
One thing I will say is the links were not working properly. I was trying to fix the problem when I notice you removed my links. I am new to wikipedia, so maybe I did not insert them correctly. Please advise on how to insert my links properly so they will not be viewed as spam.
thank you.
- You shouldn't be adding links to sites you are affiliated with.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
World IPv6 Deployment Day v. Launch
It is not "Deployment", it is "Launch". Also, it is not a "Day" event. Go to http://www.worldipv6launch.org/, "deployment" used once and "Launch" used 13 times. "day" is only mentioned w.r.t. "World IPv6 Day".
Google for "World IPv6 Deployment Day" gives me 2 hits, one of which is http://en.wikipedia.org/IPv6_deployment the problem page. Google for "World IPv6 Launch Day" gives me 101,000 hits, some of which don't capitalise "day". Google for "World IPv6 Launch" gives me 703,000 hits.
Please fix this paragraph, or let me change it. Thanks. Jm493 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, we can call it "World IPv6 Launch". Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
IPv6 IPsec support
I notice you rolled back a change (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=IPv6&diff=prev&oldid=474324453) I made to IPv6. I would like to draw your attention to section 8.2 of the cited RFC (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4294#section-8.2), which states "ESP MUST be supported. AH MUST be supported." Neither statement implies that ESP or AH must be enabled, and no other part of the RFC states that ESP or AH MUST be enabled (ESP is clearly identified as optional: "Since ESP encryption and authentication are both optional").
The statement "IPSec is mandatory" can easily be interpreted as a statement that IPSec must be enabled on all IPv6 nodes, which is inconsistent with the RFC's requirements. Replacing "IPSec" with "IPSec support" avoids this possible misinterpretation. Therefore, to maintain Misplaced Pages's reputation for accuracy, I strongly recommend "redoing" my change. Johnsmith4092 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
DoneIPv6 Privacy Controversy/Concerns
Thank you for your prompt response to my last message.
Can you please clarify your reasons for undoing (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=IPv6&diff=next&oldid=472695066) my edit to the 'Controversy' section of IPv6? I not certain what you are referring to when you say "those", how I'm faulting IPv6, and why IPv6's default method of address assignment wouldn't be relevant to a discussion of its privacy concerns.
My goal in making the edit was to more thoroughly investigate the privacy concerns (which seems to be the point of the 'Controversy' section--the heading seems misleading to me) caused by the IPv6's default method of selecting its IP address. I notice the section is currently flagged as possibly non-neutral--it certainly is the case that it lacks detail and is out-of-date. My edits provide a more comprehensive and current synopsis of the issue, making Misplaced Pages a more reliable and reputable source. I would recommend "redoing" my edit, or at least refraining from undoing my edits if I re-instate the Privacy Concerns section and make references to it in the Controversy section. Johnsmith4092 (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Web tracking is completely independent of the IP version. I'm not redoing this one because I don't believe what you added adds a lot. That neutrality tag was not because of this.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Responded to your note on my Talk page. Look forward to hearing back. I'd like to respond to the points in your previous message, but per my other response, it's not certain yet that it'd be productive. Johnsmith4092 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Mac OS X
Hi, I noticed you reverted the changes I made. I know I don't have a lot of experience with editing Misplaced Pages yet, but I think you were wrong to revert all the changes. I understand there is no registry on Mac OS X, but there is a Property List, which does become the equivalent of infected (DNA Changer, a Mac malware). How about a compromise? Instead of simply removing, "windows," from Windows registry, how about I add a section on how anti-malware for Mac works to remove the malware from OS X, since Mac is just as "infectable" as Windows is and the info should be included.
The reversions I feel were wrong include: Changed the wording of the first sentence to be clearer with definitions, as virus and spyware are classified under the umbrella term of "malware," and anti-malware was created to protect against this broader scope of infection, which includes viruses and spyware. After you reverted it, the section again reads, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection, to malware protection, and programs have been developed specifically to combat them," which could be misconstrued as being three separate infection types when in reality, malware includes spyware and viruses. I would like to change it back to what I wrote, since it is clearer, and I cited my source.
I changed the redundant expression "malware software" to "malware" since, by definition, malware is "malicious software" and is implied as such when writing the term, "malware" (not to mention being defined as such in the article's first paragraph), so "malware software" is unnecessary.
I changed "spyware" to "malware" in the same section. As reverted, it reads, "This type of spyware protection works the same way as that of antivirus protection in that the anti-malware software scans all incoming network data for malware software," which again can be misconstrued as if anti-malware only removes spyware. By changing it, it is clearer and represents that anti-malware removes all forms of malware, not just spyware.
Otherwise, the second issue you mention in the edit summary as to why you reverted states, "some anti-virus software also fixed system problems like disk cleanup," but I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not change or remove any content having to do with what this comment states. Can you explain that comment please? Thanks for your help (I'm in EST, so I may not respond again until tomorrow). JC.Torpey (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mac has no registry. I wholly agree with you on that. However, the fact that you cited your source is not relevant; some anti-virus software also include tools to help uninstall other things.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I have no idea why you are saying that. I didn't make any changes regarding uninstalling anything. The source I cited concerned my making the sentence clearer, and had nothing to do with the Mac info. I changed redundant expressions, rewrote two sentence to be clearer. That's it, so why do you keep talking about anti-virus software including tools to uninstall things? I am seriously confused by your commentJC.Torpey (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- You forgot that some anti-virus software can also do other things. Not all of them are dedicated to anti-virus.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I have no idea why you are saying that. I didn't make any changes regarding uninstalling anything. The source I cited concerned my making the sentence clearer, and had nothing to do with the Mac info. I changed redundant expressions, rewrote two sentence to be clearer. That's it, so why do you keep talking about anti-virus software including tools to uninstall things? I am seriously confused by your commentJC.Torpey (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, you are making no sense. I simply want to know why you included that comment in the edit summary when you reverted my changes since your comment has nothing to do with any changes I made. JC.Torpey (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Because you can't claim that the focus was "solely" on viruses. I can't be any more clearer than this.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Again, you are making no sense. I simply want to know why you included that comment in the edit summary when you reverted my changes since your comment has nothing to do with any changes I made. JC.Torpey (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I think I understand. I didn't make that claim. It was already there, and it is still there, despite your reversion because I didn't write that. Look at the history, I simply rewrote what was there to read better -and then cited the part about what anti-malware can get rid of, since its not anti-virus we are talking about anyway. In its current form - the one you put it back to - it reads, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection, to malware protection, and programs have been developed specifically to combat them." So, its not cited as it is, and it still reads exactly how you are telling me it shouldn't. JC.Torpey (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- No it doesn't.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I think I understand. I didn't make that claim. It was already there, and it is still there, despite your reversion because I didn't write that. Look at the history, I simply rewrote what was there to read better -and then cited the part about what anti-malware can get rid of, since its not anti-virus we are talking about anyway. In its current form - the one you put it back to - it reads, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection, to malware protection, and programs have been developed specifically to combat them." So, its not cited as it is, and it still reads exactly how you are telling me it shouldn't. JC.Torpey (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes it does. It says, "As malware attacks become more frequent, attention has begun to shift from viruses and spyware protection," which essentially means the same thing. It means that the software is not "only" focusing on viruses and spyware as it was, but is focusing on the broader issue of malware now. What I wrote had the same meaning, but was clearer. I would like to compromise, though. I am going to remove the redundant expressions (change malware software to malware because of my reasons stated above) and not touch that part. One more thing, though; above, you aid that my source was not relevant. The source I used was to cite the statement about what anti-malware focuses on removing (that it and malware itself includes viruses and spyware), and is quite relevant. JC.Torpey (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Besides the grammar, nothing's wrong. You may add but not replace something with the source.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
SORRY
Dear Jasper, your talk page is not editable. So, i'm putting this here - I'm really sorry for whatever I said. If I could, I would take back all the things I said to hurt you. But since I can’t, please make do with my apologies. I won’t quit until you accept my apology. You are the kindest person I have met. Forgive me I'm a fool. The future of anon-registered user relationship hangs on this note of apology! Please accept it. Take my hand and guide me. Take my apology and forgive me. You are as sweet as honey. You are as bright as the sun. If you accept my apology, you’ll be my number 1. Let’s put things back as they were! I am sorry. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)