User talk:DanielPharos

Thanks Daniel for the change. My intent was to show the proof and I will follow your suggestion to put it as reference. Thanks again for the advice Iqlas (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accelops isnt a very good company. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.109.81 (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for this. Either add information (with proper references) to the article, or start a discussion on the talk-page. If you just want to vent, might I suggest getting a blog? --DanielPharos (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was that related to WP:VG, but I guess it is, especially since those other pages were tagged earlier. I readded the tag. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it myself. Thanks for the heads up. Like to know when I've gone too fast. LilHelpa (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, would you be interested in joining WikiProject: Malware? I've notice your recent work with us and I appreciate the work. I look forward to working with you. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, we are glad to have any assistance. Just go to the Project page here: WikiProject Malware, and add your name to the participant list. Keep an eye out there and at our sister project, theWikiProject Computing/Computer and Information Security task force

. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DanielPharos,

I'm just wondering .. as I'm a new member to the project, what ever happened to WP:Malware? It seems, 'dead' in some sort of sense. Malware is one of the only topics I specialize in, and I'd like to assist with getting it off the ground if possible? I'm really on a constricted schedule and seeing as you made so many posts there .. I was wondering if you or some other editor could assist me?

I thank you for your time.

Kind Regards, blurpeace ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Daniel,

I think I might have made my message come on the wrong way. I was asking for assistance with the general production of the upgrade to the WikiProject, not for mentoring. I know how WP works. :)

Check the WP:MALW talk page for further information on my current work.

Thank you for your time.

Kind Regards, blurpeace ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I completely agree. Malware is a wide range of information .. and it is a devoted to field with Information Security. Leaving it out would be taking 1/4 out of the puzzle of security.

I've agreed with the other recommendation given for making it a task force. Hopefully this will turn out well .. I'm more than sure this will help centralize things between the two projects and make the overall system a lot easier for all of us. Kind Regards, blurpeace ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DanielPharos! Thank You for your assistance with WikiProject Malware! To better serve Wikipedia, this project has been closed. We thank you for all of your hard work, and we would like to invite you to our new Wikiproject at WikiProject Computer Security. We hope to see you soon! Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just its length, really. I can see where you're coming from about the content, though - that history section was a mess. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the the words video or game in the intro or categories, so I assumed it wasn't related. I added the template back. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This tag only belongs on talk pages, never on the actual article. I placed it on Talk:Tribal Trouble for you. Garion96 (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Concerning this edit of yours I would like to tell you that |nested= is not supported anymore. It doesn't effect the templates since templates are now automatically nested if there are inside {{WPBS}}. Greetings, Magioladitis (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK! I actually was wondering why they were missing... :O Sorry about that. --DanielPharos (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, does this dude really merit an article? Is he encyclopedic or just up and coming? I will accept your verdict, but if you agree he stays, they have to make the article look a little more presentable. Regards, the Botendaddy (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes, he's notable. His papers are pretty famous: [1] I even heard of this particular one through the Security Now! podcast, I think. Also, most of the articles on the first few pages on Google [2] are either written by him, or are about something he wrote. I would think that qualifies. (Especially as long as his work doesn't have any articles of its own.) --DanielPharos (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One final word on it. It still reads like a resume and does not look like an even moderate-quality Wikipedia article. That would tend to detract from the value of the article. Take a look at the page on Bletchley Park cryptographer Arthur Levenson to compare and you'll see what I mean. Peace I am the Botendaddy 03:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botendaddy (talk • contribs)

Forums are not reliable sources no. And even if those reports were "current" you haven't provided any sources for the rest of the unsourced text. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth, and 4 year old bug reports that haven't been updated to reflect any current versions of the software don't support that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 15:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found fix to the weird code error. Made some changes to main page. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discovered another fix. See talk page. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has returned to WP:Computer security. See talk page. The only way to actually "fix" the problem is a double transclusion. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 04:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always install KDE application on Gnome and the other way and it'll pull all required components automatically. It is also possible to exchange the entire desktop environment from Gnome to KDE or to have both, like here. Of course, such massive changes require a bit of configuration to make applications consistent, but this is usually nothing more than a checkbox or maybe a drop-down list. I personally usually spend much more time exploring the options. If you want more specific information, there is vast amount of information in ubuntuforums.org and linuxquestions.org.1exec1 (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, awesome, I never knew that! Thanks. So that means on the GUI side, there isn't (necessarily) a 'platform-split'. Although Linux distributions lacking any GUI at all would still be a problem. (Also, see reply below.) --DanielPharos (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering compilation, if your applications involve playing with low level stuff or so, it's hard to maintain compatibility for such a long timeframe as decade. But it's possible. All what's needed is to use available options smartly. For example, always use dynamic linking. And never use low level interfaces directly, use at least one dynamic library implementing access to them (even if all what it does is forwarding). Here's the reason why: when the low level interface changes, you can adapt only the library without recompiling the application. Similarly, you don't have recompile libraries if something deep in the system changes. Generalizing, it's possible to achieve perfect compatibility this way. The only problem is that not every one uses available options smartly. That's why I was so strongly defending my opinion regarding this subject back at the talk page.1exec1 (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, sounds like it is complicated... with enough technical "smartness" you can achieve compatiblity with every kind of system. a good platform with respect to compatiblity is one were the programmers don't need to be too smart to achieve comaptiblity (inter-, downward and forward), because it is provided by the platform itself (e.g. by following (defacto)standards). and therefore these programmers can focus their effort on the application itselfShaddam (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the 'definition' of platform is troubled. I guess 'dependancies' IS better. On Windows, you can depend on DirectX 10, .NET 3.5, win32 or even the specific way Windows 9x handles drivers, and on the Linux side Gnome, KDE, etc. So to call the various versions of Windows a single platform is questionable; the same goes for Linux. It really depends on what your program actually needs; whether various versions are 'one platform' depends on your point of view, on your program's needs.

In conclusion: When you say Windows is a single platform, you're implicitly assuming a sole dependance on win32, and not .NET, DirectX, ... So when you DO make this distinction on the Linux side of the argument, it's unfair. One could only apply the 'platform'-term from an purely architectural point of view, but that has little to do with actually running applications on said platform.

I guess the only big difference is in the common denominator on these 'platforms': Windows has win32 (which is graphical), while Linux has POSIX (which is non-graphical). Calling that a "big win for Windows" in anything other than a sarcastic way, is silly to say the least. --DanielPharos (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with that. 1exec1 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hm, i agree the concept 'platform' was not clearly defined. but from intuitive understanding a good 'platform' is fitting all potential interpretations: as archtitecture, for running applications, as complete set (to contemporary standards) of functionallity and interfaces to the access the power of hardware and OS (for users and developers), as perceived stable (over time) 'base' for software. I think a good platform must fulfill all this. POSIX for linux is failing because it is incomplete (graphical, audio, input etc). LSB neither, it fails as platform for running software because the distribuitons differing still to much, various installation systems, and even when the same, installation packages are still required to be adapted and and hand-fitted for every specific distribution. but you are right i had win32 in mind, with directX as extension because it is downward compatible from 11 down to the very beginnings. speaking about directx as perceived platform "extension", this sure true until dx10 when, sadly, support for political reason was dropped from MS for 'legacy' Windows variants. directx 9.1c is available from win98 until windows 7 spanning a range of more then 10 years with hardware and software what is the reason why still many games coming in directx9 versions. i think this is forming base which can be truly called a platform. and yes, to have an stable base (for developers and users) which allows to access and utilize a modern PC systems COMPLETE power (audio, video, grpahic (3d! after 10years still a pain in linux), various input devices, GUI, network) is "big win for that system". Shaddam (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your "for political reason" in relation to DirectX 10. It probably did play a (not insignificant) role, but it's not the major reason. Windows XP support was already ment to be dropped by the time DirectX 10 was introduced, and you say the entire Windows XP (and/or lower) driver model would have to be revised? Surely you're joking! Nvidia didn't even produce decent Vista drivers until a year after its release; do you think they would then spent even more time making this Windows XP++ driver too? It just doesn't make any sense for Microsoft to put in the effort of back-porting the Vista driver model to XP. (Also, they usually don't backport major features of the new OS: they're NEW major features for a reason!) I can't run XP drivers on Windows 98, but you don't hear me complaining. DirectX 10 relies on the new driver model to work; features that can't be easily back-ported: see DirectX 9 Ex (no link :| ).

Yes, that's exactly what I was aiming for. From an intuitive point of view, Windows (specifically, Win32) seems to be much closer to what a 'platform' should be than 'all of' Linux. That's why I'm asking if anybody has a decent defitinion of the word, so this can be made clear/can be settled, and out of personal curiosity. A platform seems wider/broader than a framework (which is what SDL, DirectX, WinSock etc are), but a clear workable definition of the word seems to be missing.

I like your "fitting all potential interpretations", but I'm wondering if even Win32 really does that. I mean, you already explicitly included DirectX. What about WinSock? It's (strictly speaking) not part of Win32. Or the text-to-speach functionality Windows has? You'd have to select "Windows" itself as the platform (maybe limiting it to desktop/server editions?). But then again, wouldn't Linux fit that description as well? Or certain distributions (like: Debian)? MS-DOS was considered a platform in its time: is it still one, or is "platform-ness" somehow time-dependant?

I'm actually starting to wonder if "platform" can't simply be defined as a multi-purpose framework? Something along the lines of: "A platform is an all-round framework, that allows the programmer/user to create a complete program solely depending on said framework." where "complete program" means "that's able to utilise most if not all of the available (hardware) features." --DanielPharos (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a Dutch-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the Dutch-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some Dutch-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.

If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=nl. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've tagged the article Avid Elastic Reality for "promotional rubbish detected". Just to add some background, this is an oscar-winning software from the 1990s that was discontinued 12 years ago, so all the pictures are actually historical documents as opposed to promotional crap or spam. It's history on the level of the Mona Lisa, for sure, but history none the less. Note also the difficulty to link to external references when the product is pre-internet. lucericr (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the page is used as a dumping site for historical records. Hmm, okay, so maybe I tagged it wrong. Let me find the right template then. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there DanielPharos, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:DanielPharos/Sandbox.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I am honored to present you The Barnstar of Diplomacy for your kind act of having done the extra mile of calling me on my talk page for dispute resolution as well as assuming good faith (or at least assuming the possibility of good faith) in me in face of other who discouraged you from doing both. With regards, Fleet Command (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

ClickBoom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to PC, Mac, Wings and Sprint

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mister Bot! ;) Problem solved, I fixed the links! --DanielPharos (talk) 10:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Qoole, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sparthorse (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about a level editor for Quake. Of the two references supplied, one is inaccessible without paying a fee, so cannot be evaluated. The other is an academic paper that used Qoole, but only because it was the "cheapest of many Quake editors" - it almost goes out of its way to describe the editor as non-notable. I don't see (yet?) the breadth and depth of coverage needed to show that Qoole is notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Sparthorse (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Qoole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to WAD

Wowhead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mac

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am proposing that both the Ontario.1024 (computer virus) and the Ontario.2048 (computer virus) articles be merged into the Ontario (computer virus).

I can see that you have previously edited these articles and any feedback on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Please find the discussion on this matter here: Talk:Ontario (computer virus).

Many thanks

Sirkus (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DanielPharos,

I herewith acknowledge that I have read your addition to my Talk page of 29 August 2012.

I plan to answer your writing with respect to content as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Maarten 1963 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Dear DanielPharos,

In your message of 29 August 2012, you ask me two questions:

1. Can you refer me to the discussion where consensus was achieved for the recent changes that you made to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security‎ page?
2. Can you refer me to the rule of the Wikipedia that states that the pages of a WikiProject should be stripped of all fancy stuff?

I cannot refer you to a discussion that lead to consensus about my renovation of the WikiProject Computer Security‎ page on 29 August 2012. However, I did not need to have found any consensus among editors to have the right to edit the page. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, and also briefly discusses the possibility of being very bold. Wikipedia states that pages should reflect consensus among editors, but does not state that consensus should be attained before edits can be made. Instead, it presents a model of how consensus can be obtained when an edit is not agreed to by other editors. Furthermore, Wikipedia states that nobody owns a page. This means that nobody can dictate the contents of a page in relation to other editors. Consequently, objecting to an edit on the sole ground that the edit is not based on consensus is not acceptable.

I cannot refer you to the rule of the Wikipedia that states that the pages of a WikiProject should be stripped of all fancy stuff. As far as I know, the rule does not exist. However, editors are not required to retain any fancy stuff on the pages of a WikiProject.

I can refer you to Wikipedia:Be bold, Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

Yours sincerely,

Maarten 1963 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Dear DanielPharos,

I have added a section to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security, called "Renovation of the project's page".

Yours sincerely,

Maarten 1963 (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Dear editor DanielPharos,

I have added a writing to the section "Renovation of the project's page" of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security.

Yours sincerely,

Maarten 1963 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Dear editor DanielPharos,

I have added a writing to the section "Renovation of the project's page" of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security.

Yours sincerely,

Maarten 1963 (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

May not meet notability standards.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Asturix, which you recently edited, is going through an AfD here. Richiguada ~ усилий и слава 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Here is what I considered:

• Multiple sections of content, with a properly defined structure
• 1696 bytes of readable prose (that's without bulleted prose items), which would have been enough to e.g. nominate it for WP:DYK (where stubs are not accepted)
• Infobox with a screenshot
• At least some refs to "establish verifiability". What this means - as I understand it - is that it should be easy to verify that the topic actually exists, i.e. that the article is not a hoax ("No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.")
• No cleanup tags or obvious major problems

While I'm not really familiar with the subject, my impression was that the "Files and compiling" section was not strictly speaking off topic. All in all, I felt the article went beyond "a very basic description of the topic". Still, I'd see no problem whatsoever if you disagreed and reassessed the article back to stub, but in that case I'd advise adding appropriate cleanup tags. GregorB (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2013 (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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit made me realise these categories should be merged - I've nominated the merge at CfD and figured you'd be interested. ··gracefool 💬 22:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I have added my two cents. --DanielPharos (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From your contribution history it seems to me you might be interested in this tool for WikiProject-assessing: User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. I find it very useful and it has saved me countless hours of time already. Just wanted to let you know about it, maybe give it a try!

--Fixuture (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I'll be sure to check it out; sounds useful indeed. --DanielPharos (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Really suitable for inclusion?. 198.98.51.57 (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Listcrufts removal . John1234ou812 (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of bitcoin wallets 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/Comparison of bitcoin wallets until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nival_(company)#Nival got hacked last year. Encyclopedic to include?. Pavel Novikov (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel,

I noticed you changed the Delphi link in SuperMemo inforbox (viz). I would like to ask for your reasoning since the new link redirects to a canonical page of the old link i.e. Delphi (programming language) -> Delphi (software).

Many thanks! Kubis (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kubo2: It's to make things consistent. The "programming language" entry of the infobox should mention the programming language, not the IDE. Even though right now the programming language page redirects to the software page, it didn't used to: [3] So if the programming language page in the future is changed to redirect elsewhere, or become its own article, this link will already be correct. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brush (video game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources

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. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're on a break, but instead of asking for the deletion of a whole bunch of articles, maybe consider proposing merges? Anyway, I merged it, so the couple of reliable sources on this topic aren't lost. --DanielPharos (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DanielPharos, I noticed that the Brush (video game) article had been merged into Quake Army Knife without proper discussion. I've restored it as its own article since brushes are widely used across many engines (not just in BSP or Quake-related tools). I'm also expanding the article with additional sources. Feel free to pitch in! Connection459986517 (talk) 07:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds good! The reason there was no proper discussion about merging it, is because the content was deleted by others from other pages, so I merged it to retain the information. But I agree: it should be its own article; that's why I created the Brush-article years ago in the first place. --DanielPharos (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DanielPharos. Thank you for your work on MoHRadiant. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned on target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824:As per the page creation's edit summary: "Created redirect page similar to MOH Radiant". The official spelling of this software's name is without the space, hence I created the correct redirect. But because it's often misspelled, I left the old redirect intact. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the word "Radiant" isn't mentioned in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. We shouldn't be surprising readers. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824:I agree. Feel free to contact User:Krator about it. When (s)he created the MOH Radiant-redirect, there also was no mention of MoHRadiant on the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault page. My guess is that (s)he forgot to actually merge the content of MOH Radiant into that page. But I can't find any merge-discussion, so I wouldn't know.

As an alternative, I suggest pointing both redirects to Quake modding#Quake III, just like CoDRadiant, CoD2Radiant, CoD4Radiant, DarkRadiant, GtkRadiant, Q3Radiant, Q4Radiant, QERadiant, and ZeroRadiant. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]