Talk:SunPCi

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

blog.ekholm.org

I find this re-inserted reference in Special:Diff/930822078 not consistent with Using self-published sources and it should be removed. @Mu301: Graywalls (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response at AfD. No point in commenting here, at this point. --mikeu ^talk 07:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

blogs, original research and such

Personal websites, blogs and such are for the most part not acceptable per WP:NOTRS, WP:SPS. It's an editorial decision tag contents as better source needed, or citation needed; however introducing contents original research or contents from blogs/personal websites then touching it up with these tags is not a good practice per contents guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally expect such items to be reasonably removed in 2 months (say 14 Feb 2020) unless replaced by better sources, perhaps primary if necessary so long as the prose qualified the claims. Or some geek could try to find tin without a flat battery and duff dimms that might hang together enough to try it out and upload the video evidence to commons ..... Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls ... you win your edit war .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls Is there some urgent deadline that you are trying to meet that we are unaware of? Your relentless pursuit of removing material[1] is unnecessarily rushed and is disruptive to those of us who are making considerable effort to methodically expand the page and increase its quality. You've now reverted three times just barely outside the 24 hour 3RR, which is gaming the system. Please stop or this might result in (another[2]) incident report. --mikeu ^talk 14:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that these cards were designed with PC compatibility in mind which, by definition, implies that they can run any OS/application that an equivalent desktop PC was capable of running. A card that is officially supported for Red Hat Enterprise Linux will also run any Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives of that code base.

The entire section in question IMO needs a rewrite and expansion. I'm considering putting the card info with Solaris support into a wikitable format, for example. As of now I don't even know if this will survive AfD, so I'm more concerned about establishing notability and general clarification of the text. The info in the section at question are trivial details that can be fixed later. The principles and spirit or our policy are more important than wikilawering minutiae.

I'll get around to this soon enough, but lately I've been busy helping to quintuple the size of the page[3] and adding copious references. Others could help by making additions and copyediting that improve the article. Now can we please move on to productive editing and discussion? --mikeu ^talk 14:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the main article is not a scratch pad. A comment left in edit summary suggests it was used as a scratch pad "Rvt: It is a reminder to me/others to sort out better things and improve the article. If you have the file up for deletion stop disrupting it while others are trying to improve it. Thankyou". That sort of reminder/source discussions belong in the talk. It's not acceptable to introduce new contents sourced from dubious sources try game the reliable sourcing and verifiability by introducing it together with "better sources needed" tag. Graywalls (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

View points, unofficial contents (including unofficial applications, game tricks and others) that come from general blogs and personal sites are not acceptable according to WP:RS and it gives WP:UNDUE weight to such contents. There is no urgency, but the dispute contents with those issues were added very recently in Special:Diff/930891751. If left to stand in an article on which there's activity it could be seen as consensus by silence. I believe the prudent thing is to wait until it has been covered by a reliably published source. Graywalls (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC) @Mu301: Graywalls (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mu301:, you have an incorrect understanding of WP:3RR. It's reasonable to say someone is gaming the system if they've made their FOURTH edit just a bit outside the 24 hours. You're misapplying policies in making your unfounded allegation of edit warring when someone's making edits well within the 3RR rules. The disputed sources were very recently added. You claim that "I'd generally expect such items to be reasonably removed in 2 months (say 14 Feb 2020)". Please give precedent, such as noticeboard discussions endorsing personal websites recently added into the article should be allowed to persist. I am also curious what guiding policies or consensus suggests a time frame of two months. Graywalls (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assertion that you are gaming the system by a frivolous AfD nom for no other reason than an edit dispute, without even discussing the issues WP:BEFORE. It is also gaming the system to spread out controvertial reverts for which there is no consensus over three days.[4] Your arguments about interpreting policy should be balanced by The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording. Please have a close look at the expansion of this article since the AfD.[5] Your repeated removal of that material is disruptive to those of us who are trying to improve the content here. --mikeu ^talk 19:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unacceptable sources: personal websitse

These sources do not comply with content guidelines WP:USESPS. They were not sources existing in the article for a long time, but they were very recently introduced here and I feel that appending it with "better sources needed" on such sources is gaming WP:RS requirements. The prose was modified to say "some people say" but the sources were retained. This might be appropriate if it is a reliable opinion per WP:RSOPINION, but personal websites whose authors haven't been vetted as recognized expert per Wikipedia standards should not be given voice. It's not encyclopedic to publish findings and opinions of personal websites, as might be appropriate over at Wikiveristy. Also of relevance in support of these sources failing to meet Wikipedia contents guidelines at: WP:RSSELF. These recently added sources and "some people say...." derived from these sources need to be removed. This content shouldn't be given any validity per WP:VALID. Graywalls (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per quoted WP:USESPS A self-published work may be used as a source when the statement concerns the source itself. For example, for the statement "The organization purchased full-page advertisements in major newspapers advocating gun control," the advertisement(s) in question could be cited as sources, even though advertisements are self-published.. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)

Which means that http://www.vdberg.org/~richard/Linux-on-SunPCi-mini-Howto/ would be acceptable if the page was about RICHARD. Sun's official page would be ok if it's about Sun stuff. Some guy Richard commenting on Sun stuff certain wouldn't be ok. http://www.subsole.org/netbsd_sun_pci would be ok for a page about Emanuel Kasper, but nothing else. Well if these guys are not notable enough for there to be pages about them and they don't pass WP:RS or WP:SPS as recognized expert (as published in peer recognized journals, or reliably published book son relevant matters), then these pages have no business getting cited anywhere. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't scummer Richard. Per the edit summary you may be wishing for a comment my position is unmoved. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not appealing to you. There's no presumption of inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]