User talk:CharlesHolston

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Which "multiple software"s?

Here you wrote "this page literally lists multiple software that are not notable.". Please remove them, or at least specify which softwares you deem not noteworthy, so I can remove them. Adding another non-noteworthy software doesn't help anyone (excluding Shreyas Zare A.K.A. Technitium). Two wrongs doesn't make a right. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Well, following are not notable software in the article:

  • gdns
  • Nominum Authoritative Name Server (ANS)
  • Nominum Vantio and CacheServe
  • NxFilter
  • redins
  • Secure64 DNS Authority
  • Secure64 DNS Cache
  • Yaku-NS
@CharlesHolston: I removed everything on your list, save for Secure64 DNS, before I even saw your list. It seems that we are in agreement on those. Secure64 DNS is mentioned in the Secure64 Software article, which's notability is questioned. My reasoning is that removing Secure64 DNS from the comparison seems sensible when/if the Secure64 article is removed. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@185.213.154.168: you should read this talk page on the main article which already discusses these issues that you are raising. I hope you understand it and edit the article in good faith.

@CharlesHolston: Don't question my good faith! I go by noteworthiness as inclusion criteria in lists, and including content without any reliable source is giving it undue weight. Without any reliable source, anyone can add anything. Editors must be able to verify Wikipedia's content. Adding software without any reliable source supporting its noteworthiness is to give it undue weight. I didn't remove everything without an article, I removed everything where I couldn't find a singe reliable source. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@185.213.154.168: your contributions show that you are having some issue with anything related to Technitium and are searching for it and removing it. You have even removed Bit Chat from Comparison_of_LAN_messengers page that was added by someone entirely different. This makes your actions targeted and points to harassment.

@CharlesHolston: That is a misrepresentation of my contributions. I don't have an issue with "Technitium", what ever it is. I have an issue with content on Wikipedia without any reliable sourcing. I have an issue with undisclosed COI editing and sockpuppeting. I didn't search for Technitium. If I search for COI and find an article with "Technitium" stuff in it, then that's obviously an issue with "Technitium" not my editing. I cleaned up an article with a history of COI edits (as evident by the talkpage). I added reliable sources where I could find them, after which I "Removed entries where I couldn't find at least one reliable source supporting notability.". "Bit Chat" just happen to be one of the softwares without any reliable sourcing, which isn't my fault. I can't help it if no one has written about "Bit Chat" in a reliable source. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@185.213.154.168: You did do a targeted search and "Bit Chat" is an example. It was added by 72.128.114.238 which from IP seems to be from USA and no where related to COI claims you are making. Just to make it look justified, you removed multiple entries citing not being notable. See WP:NNC which clearly says "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists" and this makes your edits not as per guidelines.
@CharlesHolston: I didn't remove "Bit Chat" due to COI. I didn't argue notability. I argued noteworthiness. Don't put words in my mouth. Like I said, I removed entries where I couldn't find at least one reliable source supporting noteworthiness. WP:NNC also says: "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". Adding random products to a comparison, without any reliable sourcing, is to give those products undue weight. A.K.A. spamming. I can't help that your precious "Technitium" lacks reliable sourcing. Stop spamming Wikipedia, please. If it's as good as you make it out to be, it's inevitable to be written about in a reliable source. If you are so concerned about non-noteworthy stuff being removed, why do you fixate on stuff by "Technitium"? How is that neutral? 185.213.154.168 (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  N.J.A. | talk 14:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CharlesHolston (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not hold multiple accounts, this is the only account I created after editing directly with my IP 103.250.47.154 CharlesHolston (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as you are no longer blocked. To avoid edit warring, please be sure to use the talk pages and seek consensus.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Another admin will consider your request for unblock, but perhaps not before the block expires in any event. 1) Do you work or have any affiliation with Technitium? If so, please advise and review WP:PAID and make the required disclosure. As to your comment about multiple accounts, you do hold “multiple accounts" as the IP is considered an account for the purpose of using both the IP and this registered account to edit disruptively on several articles and engage in edit warring. The other IP was warned on disruptive editing as well and you both are advised to raise your COI complaints about each other at the appropriate forum once this block has expired, N.J.A. | talk 10:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, the account was created since the IP I am on is a shared broadband IP and may change anytime. So I switched to the user account to keep track of the changes. I am not affiliated with Technitium and i am just using one of their software. CharlesHolston

@ NJA I request you to review recent edits made by IP address 185.213.154.168 and take appropriate action. The user seems to be searching and removing anything that he finds related to Technitium on multiple pages. The user has even removed Bit Chat from Comparison_of_LAN_messengers page that was added by someone entirely different. I believe this makes his actions amount to harassment and probably even COI that he may be associated with some entity that has issue with anything related to Technitium.

That is a misrepresentation of my contributions. I don't have an issue with "Technitium", what ever it is. I have an issue with content on Wikipedia without any reliable sourcing. I have an issue with undisclosed COI editing and sockpuppeting. I didn't search for Technitium. If I search for COI and find an article with "Technitium" stuff in it, then that's obviously an issue with "Technitium" not my editing. I cleaned up an article with a history of COI edits (as evident by the talkpage). I added reliable sources where I could find them, after which I "Removed entries where I couldn't find at least one reliable source supporting notability.". "Bit Chat" just happen to be one of the softwares without any reliable sourcing, which isn't my fault. I can't help it if no one has written about "Bit Chat" in a reliable source. A hypothetical: If I theoretically were to search for every unsourced claim that the earth is flat, would that be "harassement" of our flat earth and COI editing, or would that be regular editing? 185.213.154.168 (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you both try to accommodate each other rather than bicker over this. Saying that, the edits by this account such as this one is inappropriate. While sourcing that a product may do such and such may not be an issue, directly naming the product mid paragraph is not encyclopedic. Technitium DNS Server is not the only product in the world that can accomplish the task attributed to it. I would stop trying to push the product like that or this will become a permanent block, N.J.A. | talk 10:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NJA: That's what I've been trying to do. I didn't know the COIN thing existed when I reverted the non-encyclopedic product pushing edits. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NJA: I am just protesting 185.213.154.168's indiscriminate clean up which has been done without understanding guidelines like looking at the talk page for the article. The reason for removing entries from the page is too not as per WP:NNC guidelines which clearly says "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists". Thus removing entries with "not notable" as a reason is inappropriate. CharlesHolston
Here are the Comparison of LAN messengers edits which was conveniently left out of the ad hominem argument and apparent personal attack of me: first second 185.213.154.168 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 185.213.154.168 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:CharlesHolston"