Talk:Shell account/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Irrelevant Infomation

"Shell accounts have been involved in illegal activity." I think this should be removed from the article as this can apply to many things yet it goes unsaid. For example, a car, a banana, a pop can, can be used in illegal activities but we don't put that in articles about those topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.37.188 (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This information is relevant as per the references. As for your example, we see an entire article on Motor vehicle theft. We can't just remove because you think it should go unsaid. --Hm2k (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

List of shell providers - criteria

If a list of shell providers is to be maintained in this article, is there a consensus on how to define notability as a clear criteria for inclusion (and thus exclusion) in order to avoid this becoming an endless directory of providers (see WP:LSC)?—Ash (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability is already established by each article. If there is a lack of notability there would not be an article and thus should not be in the list. This is the general consensus throughout Wikipedia. --Hm2k (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so the criteria is that shell providers are only included where there is a Wikipedia article (not actually clear, particularly as 'Grex' does not follow this rule). If this is the criteria it should be stated. The list still seems entirely redundant as Category:Shell account providers does the same job (just updated it) as by definition they should remain identical, and this embedded list ought to be removed for that reason unless inclusion here adds some particular extra encyclopaedic value making it worth maintaining.—Ash (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An article did exist for Grex and was userfied. It may return soon, however feel free to fix it yourself. Consider the list as a more elaborate extension of the "see also" sections often seen on articles. It's there to assist where categories cannot such as giving brief detail to the non-technical reader. You cannot completely dismiss the list as it was originally a separate article, but it was merged because it's not big enough to justify a whole article, yet it is notable enough for one. Further more, it is highly appropriate to link to articles about shell account providers from the shell account page. --Hm2k (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like the current inclusion criteria for this embedded list is "any provider of shell accounts notable enough to have a current wikipedia article or that may have draft pages in userspace". Do think the embedded list does not need an explicit definition inclusion criteria?—Ash (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You have clearly misunderstood what I'm saying, which is that notability is established if there is an article and that you can fix it at your own discretion. Wikipedia already provides criteria for content, we should use those, no further criteria is required. --Hm2k (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't fancy fixing it on your behalf. Consequently by the definition you've given here Grex should be removed until such time as an article is created. I'll remove it on that basis.—Ash (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you raised this discussion you would be fixing it on your own behalf, not mine. Redlinks can be removed at your own discretion based on Wikipedia's criteria. "So fix it" applies here, you don't need my approval. --Hm2k (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the 'shell providers' section seems arbitrary. there are tens of thousands of shell providers on the net. i support the deletion of the section, and moving the content to elsewhere in the article. for example, a sentence like 'the well is one of the first shell providers' could be merged into the main part of the articl if there's a third party, reliable source mentioning the fact that the well was one of the first. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If the list is removed, the wikilinks will be restored in some form or another. The current form is the most direct and maintainable. You should consider improving Wikipedia rather than removing content and making it more difficult to navigate. --Hm2k (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm2k, I see you've just reverted my improvement to the inclusion criteria. On the one hand you say go ahead and improve the article whilst on the other you appear to be setting yourself up as sole arbiter on how this list should be handled. This particular server has no rationale for notability, that is why I removed it and refined the criteria to be the earliest shell account providers. If you are going to be entirely resistant to change then you will find yourself outside of a consensus.—Ash (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The list is a list, there is no other criteria. Who put you in charge of deciding the criteria? If the "server" has no place on here, it has no place on Wikipedia. Good luck. --Hm2k (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted my edit for a second time without consideration of the page you are linking to. Adding links to articles and assuming that because an article exists on WP it must be okay to link to seems naive, particularly considering this one is up for deletion. It's strange that your response is to ask who put me in charge, you may find the guidance of WP:OWN helpful as you appear to be acting in an overtly non-collaborative manner.—Ash (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your condescending attitude has no place here. Just wait until the article is removed from Wikipedia before you go removing it, don't just change the criteria to suit yourself. Common sense prevails. --Hm2k (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link (twice) because there are no independent sources that establish Sakima.Ivy.NET as notable, not because of "attitude". As for changing the criteria, I have explained above that the current absence of criteria means that there is no reason to exclude any organization that at some time provided commercial shell accounts (normally as part of a bundle of services), for example the majority of organizations that can be found at Category:Internet_service_providers which would make this a pretty meaningless and debatable embedded list.—Ash (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ash, you're starting on a path of bad faith with this. Firstly notability of Sakima.Ivy.NET is already in debate else where, I won't be discussing that here; Until it's redlinked, it's considered notable as per Wikipedia's guidelines, if it's notable for Wikipedia it's notable for this list. As for the others you've added to prove some kind of ridiculous point, it just makes you seem pathetic. The content of the articles aren't relevant to the topic and will be removed. --Hm2k (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are removing organizations which are notable and documented in independent sources as providing shell account services (such as Demon) and replacing an organization for which no independent sources are available to demonstrate notability. There is nothing in WP guidance about keeping cross-links to articles which cannot be substantiated as relevant to the source article. You are not being consistent to your own rationale of how this list should be maintained. It is not possible to exclude the organizations I have added on the basis that you have explained so far, you appear to be reverting my edits for no good reason.—Ash (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The articles you added bare no relevance to this topic and thus they were removed. If you believe otherwise, feel free to improve those articles so they are relevant. The articles in the list are already relevant to this topic. Again, common sense prevails. --Hm2k (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, the same argument could apply to Sakima.Ivy.NET, you are free to improve it by adding independent sources. Your argument is obviously inconsistent as you are not applying the same principle to the links you want to keep. Demon did provide Unix shell access as part of its original services before they went on to become a large national ISP, why would you exclude them as a shell account provider?—Ash (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any independent sources for Sakima.Ivy.NET, thus once it goes red, it should be removed, but not before. Are you seeking my permission to improve the Demon Internet article? --Hm2k (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange that you called me patronizing.—Ash (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The view is good from the moral high ground. --Hm2k (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

just because Sakima.Ivy.NET has a wikipedia article, that doesn't mean it's worthy of mention in other articles. if you cannot show how Sakima.Ivy.NET is notable enough for mention in the shell account list, it will be removed. consensus is against you. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you say something is so, doesn't make it so. Please direct me to the guidelines that support your statement. --Hm2k (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Demon internet

Hm2k, looking at your most recent reversions, you appear to contend that though Demon provided a BBS and associated accounts to access their service these are not "shell accounts" as the Demon article does not happen to use these words. Do you believe that Demon created a special non-Unix like system that provided the same functions as a Unix-like system or do you have some other suggestion as to how this worked? I remember using the dial up service and using a terminal shell in order to use FTP to download their internet applications, it looked like Unix to me at the time. Perhaps the definition of "shell account" in this article needs refinement to explain why this would not apply to Demon's early service.—Ash (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is out of place here, try the talk page for the Demon Internet article. A BBS is not a shell account, dispute this on the BBS article. If you have reliable sources that state otherwise, by all means go ahead and document it on Wikipedia, until then, I won't be engaging with trolls. --Hm2k (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that a discussion about what "shell account" means is more relevant to the Shell account talk page than the other pages you suggest. As for your accusation that I am a m:troll, I guess I should be grateful that you will not be replying to me any more, I guess that means that you will not be reverting my edits again without proper consensus. Happy Christmas.—Ash (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

proposal to remove the "shell providers" section

1. the list is an arbitrary collection of names which may or may not be notable for being shell providers. where is the evidence that they are notable for being a shell provider? what is the criteria for adding names to this list? WP:Burden

2. there are thousands of shell providers on the net. why are these 5 special? sources to show why they're special?

3. per WP:burden The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. please provide sources for ISPs on this arbitrary list, otherwise they should be removed. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to split the "Shell providers" section to List of shell providers allowing issues with the list to be addressed at an article level. --Hm2k (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Poorly Written

Why is the opening statement of this article written in past tense? Poorly written. Opertinicy (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed "gave" to "gives" in the first sentence. Also, I have no knowledge of a shell account provider running VMS. It looks like this particular part was written in 1980. :) Also, I have no idea why one would want to run shell accounts on an OS that doesn't provide a multi-user environment such as Windows. There can only be one user logged into a Windows machine at a time. If I were someone who didn't know what a shell account was and I came here to look it up I still would not know what a shell account is after I read the article. What do you think about linking to lists of providers already out there, such as this and an article explaining shell accounts and how to choose one such as this. Egghelp.org is just one example. However, it is both a good example and a trusted one in the community. I'm just throwing suggestions out to everyone.--Traumatic (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

External links

The "external links" section was split off with the list of shell providers, but since that article has since been deleted (on it's own terms), I'd be happy to restore the "external links" section from before the split. Agree or  Disagree? --Hm2k (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The dmoz link should be restored; none of the rest of it is necessary. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As per this discussion, the dmoz directory heavily outdated and unmaintained. That alone would be insufficient. --Hm2k (talk) 11:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Resource links are not appropriate here. They are occasionally tolerated if held on an open directory like dmoz, but they are not mandatory. if the dmoz link is, as you say, outdated and unmaintained, and if nobody here wants to step up and improve that directly, then we can do without external links. This isn't the Yellow Pages and people shouldn't be encouraged to head to Wikipedia for recommendations on which provider to use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with all 3 or nothing at all. --Hm2k (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Hm2k (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

acky.net

It seems acky.net and it's site shellsearch.com are having some technical difficulties. The sites have been down for months, so it will be removed from the external links. --Hm2k (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Crime

"Shell accounts have been involved in illegal activity, such as denial of service attacks or distributing illegal software."

vehicles are generally "involved" in bank robbery, but surely this is not notable. 216.138.75.50 (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Computers were involved in said illegal activity, as was electricity and the TCP-IP protocol. 173.164.74.34 (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed it.Lyle Stephan (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mission statement and abusive deletions/reverts.

I am not related to any project or a company I restored links to. I am just an Internet's history fan. Requesting a Wikipedia administrator step in and see how some self-righteous people try to butcher this article, and do something about it. It is not for Wikipedia editors to judge stuff as "dead" etc., and the links that were removed were not "dead" I checked them all. Also isn't it the Wikipedia policy that if a link is dead you are looking for an internet archive copy, not just deleting the link? 83.25.247.143 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)