User talk:TurboForce

Question

Dear TurboForce,

How can I contact with you? this page is good for me.

I am a newbie in Linux I have a question : why Linux don't have Installer for applications as windows? I know it have Installer , but it depends on Internet I am talking like windows: I download what ever application and by clicking on it on Linux it begin installation.

waiting your answer Thanks HerQule.

I'm not a Linux expert, so I can't give you a proper answer. Best use the package manager or contact your Linux distributor. TurboForce (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Security concerns"

In the new section you just added to Criticism of Microsoft Windows, you use the "Windows Virtual DOS Machine (VDM) vulnerability" as an example of a security vulnerability that wasn't patched for a long time. While that is strictly true, it wasn't patched because it wasn't known for 17 years. Your text however seems to suggest that is was known, but 'deliberately' remained unpatched by Microsoft... Which is not true (your own source says: "He reported the bug to Microsoft more than seven months ago."). Can you please correct this? --DanielPharos (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best. TurboForce (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that'll do fine. Thanks! --DanielPharos (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Wineon64bit.png

Thanks for uploading File:Wineon64bit.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been resolved. For anyone reading: check you have done everything properly BEFORE you actually upload the image. Correcting mistakes afterwards is somewhat tricky if you are not familiar with editing the image information later. TurboForce (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Rkhunter Ubuntu.png

Thanks for uploading File:Rkhunter Ubuntu.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone may have done this already? Shame that Wikipedia does not make you fill in a "form" asking for the relevant information BEFORE accepting the upload of an image. If this image gets removed, I will be asking around for help. It's only a screenshot. TurboForce (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi could you check out the Afd for Schenecker double homicide it totally up to you to say Keep or Delete. But for me personally is a clear cut case Keep just like with Murder of Joanna Yeates.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having quickly read that page, it's a tragic incident which has occurred in the USA. I don't know how much media coverage the case has attracted nor do I know how strongly people there feel about having the page kept on Wikipedia. In cases such as the Murder of Joanna Yeates and the Disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh, the media coverage was extensive for both, and in other cases such as the Fritzl case, again, it has been kept on Wikipedia as a result of media coverage and it's a tragic event which many people remember. If you feel the AfD (article for deletion) should be kept/Keep, please tell people why. TurboForce (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation spam

Please take a note of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming with reference to the pressure cooker article - it's no excuse to say that nobody has suggested better citations. The point is that the article should not be incorporating so much irrelevant material in the first place! It's supposed to be about a particular piece of technology, it's not a cookery magazine. Thanks. Archstanton (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see you write the pressure cooking article better. I've worked very hard editing that page and nobody else has been a jobsworth like you. Cheeky sod! TurboForce (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent links were added by another user. The citations I've added to that page are links to pages with just factual information only. TurboForce (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see there are only 2 ref links on that page, but these are now book references, one of which replaces the previous ref link about using cooking oil to minimise foaming. The pressure cooking page has been the most difficult page when it comes to finding and using ref links which nobody argues about! TurboForce (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus

Question: I stumbled upon this page, where you added the Wine screenshot. Why did you do that? Nowhere in the article I can find any mention of cross-platform, Linux or Wine. Thus it's completely non-relevant, and might even be considered original research! Could you maybe provide a reference that this 'feature' of Pegasus Mail is somehow important, or at least write some supporting text for the picture? --DanielPharos (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same screenshot used on the page about the Wine compatibility layer. The screenshot has to be labelled truthfully i.e. Pegasus Mail is not running in Windows. The Pegasus Mail Wiki does mention Wine: [1]. TurboForce (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume you're going to add that link with some text to the Pegasus Mail article now? Thanks! --DanielPharos (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the Pegasus Mail page with ref links about it working in Linux using Wine. TurboForce (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! --DanielPharos (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! :) TurboForce (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there TurboForce, 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:TurboForce. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

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) 05:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Wikipedia would put a big warning banner in place if a user uploads an image which is considered copyright. It is my OWN work, so I've removed the copyright. Image uploading on Wikipedia needs to be improved to avoid all this confusion!

Edit warring

Can you please explain why you uncivilly threatened an edit war? Edit warring is never acceptable.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer is because I've spent months and many hours of work, during my spare time, on editing the Comparison of Windows and Linux page, only to have a bunch of Windows fanboys remove all that hard work I put into improving that page, just because they don't like the truth about Windows being crap, because the truth hurts. Even my valid ref links were taken away because these fanboys are jealous. The edit war will continue! TurboForce (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, but WP:EW will get you blocked, WP:Consensus works better. With some help from neutral editors WP:NPOV problems in articles usually get solved pretty fast. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TurboForce, do you think saying things like "Windows being crap" is adhering to a neutral point of view? Please think before you make such comments (because they violate our civility policy). Don't game the system for your own purpose, nor edit war, even if you believe you are right. If you didn't want what you inserted changed mercilessly, don't edit it in (there's a small note below the Save page button that says that). If you edit war, I will report it and have you blocked. Instead of that, which most certainly wouldn't make you a happy camper here, let's try consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm just VERY angry that months' and hours' of my work on the Comparison of Windows and Linux page has been destroyed in a just a few minutes! I had used ref links in all the right places and for a long time, nobody had a problem with any of it. Now a few individuals have have pushed my patience too far! TurboForce (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is a virtue, especially on Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"nobody had a problem with any of it." Did you just call me a nobody? ;) --DanielPharos (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL – I see the funny side too. :P

I'm going to have a short break from Wikipedia. Hours and hours of perfection does get tiring. I do plan to edit Wikipedia for many years to come, but I do need a break right now as I do a lot of typing on computers. I've been touch typing for about 14 years now! Just imagine how many characters I've typed on keyboards during that time! :)

Cheers for reading. TurboForce (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

[2], [3], [4] - please see the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV. The fact that Microsoft needs to patch at all means that readers will not think Windows is more secure than it really is.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited recently and it's very carefully worded to make it appear that Windows is patched quicker. I have included examples which proves that this not always the case. TurboForce (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree-the wording in no way is carefully worded. I'm sure you would oppose me adding a link to a linux virus.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Comparison of Windows and Linux

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Comparison of Windows and Linux. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility warning

I've asked you to refrain from incivility, which you continue to display. Please refrain from incivility. If you continue you are likely to get blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

You have been mentioned at User talk:Worm That Turned.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TurboForce. I've had a look at the sections in question. Whilst there are no personal attacks, there are several points of incivility in your posts - including WP:SHOUT, agressive tone and so on. Please ensure you tone these comments down - this is meant to be a collaborative environment.

Whilst I'm on the subject, I feel the need to remind you that wikipedia is not a warzone. Please drop the battleground mentality, and work together with the editors in question to produce a neutral article. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY OKAY. If I see *any* unfair bias on Wikipedia pages, such as the currently disputed Comparison of Windows and Linux page, then I *will* complain very loudly until it's addressed. TurboForce (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TurboForce. Besides the fact that you've unnecessarily bolded your comment there, I just like to thank you for acknowledging what I was saying. If you are finding "unfair bias", then that is a worry - we're trying to create an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view - and if you feel an article is written from a biased point of view, perhaps it would be a good idea to write a report at the NPOV noticeboard. You could also ask for a third opinion, or even start a request for comment if there's certain points that need addressing. I'm afraid I can't help that much from a content point of view, as I'm a touch busy over the next few days. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agreeing with TurboForce's approach or manner, but I would like to highlight that there are without doubt editors with corporate and/or financial interest in Microsoft who will never portray a neutral point of view, no matter how sugarcoated and practised their responses. These editors are also no doubt paid to be fully aware of the multitudes of Wikipedia policies and to take advantage of them in talk page arguments Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system. Wikipedia proclaims to be an idealistic platform, but there is little acknowledgement for the hard work of volunteers that may be easily thwarted by corporate interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the previous comment left by an anonymous user. I'm not the only person who notices that there are editors with some corporate and/or financial interest in Microsoft, who will carefully break the neutrality of pages, especially the Comparison of Windows and Linux page. These Microsoft advocates wreck pages and destroy many hours of volunteers' work on Wikipedia, in order to carefully lie about the truth, but stay within the rules of Wikipedia. TurboForce (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you assume that I'm the one who wrote all of Microsoft's ads...Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who carefully writes things in favour of Microsoft — AND AT THE SAME TIME — makes every effort possible to discredit Linux, will of course be part of these shenanigans. TurboForce (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned again at User talk:Worm That Turned.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Please refrain from violating WP:NPOV. Wikipedia talk pages are not for you to go on rants about Windows. Userrup and I are not employees of Microsoft - please assume good faith with our actions. You have not listened to my previous notes about NPOV violations by you - please do. For the last time, your definition of biased is biased itself.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith

Hi TurboForce, Although at times you may be frustrated please remember to assume good WP:FAITH towards your fellow wikipedians and to be WP:NICE. It does not help you to engage in WP:PERSONAL attacks; that includes accusations without evidence that someone has a POV. Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right. It is *very* frustrating editing Wikipedia at times! If anyone is lying on here, I will fight until the truth comes out. TurboForce (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a fight or battle.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Microsoft Windows#Security concerns - shatter attack

Just to explain my edit: The two refs you linked are for Windows XP and Windows 2000. The shatter attack article clearly mentions major improvements and changes in Windows Vista, which largely if not entirely fix or mitigate this form of attack. So you can't claim Microsoft dismissed it and didn't fix it, since they did fix the problems mentioned in your refs.

I put the refs in the shatter attack article, since they are nice finds!

Also, please try to keep your edit-summaries neutral and free of personal attacks. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad my ref links were useful and thanks for adding them to the shatter attack page. Microsoft did deny the problem in the beginning and the shatter attack has not been completely resolved. This should be mentioned in the criticism of Microsoft Windows page. I will change the ref link to the archived version of the original paper here, because this one has the working links, such as the e-mail to Microsoft about the problem. TurboForce (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They did not deny the problem, they denied that it was a flaw in Windows; the shatter attack article has the full quote. And it's quite obvious why it took until Windows Vista before this problem was addressed: that's the first major new version of Windows released after the discovery of this attack. (Due to backwards compatibility issues, they couldn't resolve it earlier.)

If you can 'prove' (with refs, of course) that the attack has not been completely resolved (and that this is the fault of Microsoft), you should add it back to the article. (And don't forget to add it to the shatter attack article too!) --DanielPharos (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found any 'proof' that this shatter attack has been completely fixed; if that's true, then it's a valid criticism that the shatter attack weakness has existed in Windows for nearly 2 decades and could not be "fixed" very quickly as this would break too many programs. I'm not aware of any other operating systems that currently have (or had in the past for a long time) a security vulnerability that either cannot be fixed or takes many years to fix, because fixing it would break too many existing programs. Interesting topic. TurboForce (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "mega confusion"

At the end, you subtract the boy's 2-pound tip from the 27 pounds, since that was supposed to be part of the refund. This produces 25 pounds - the billed price.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. :) Thanks.

The maths involved confuses so many people. I added the "mega confusion" to show how confusing things can become in life. I never did well in maths lessons at school. xD TurboForce (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pfaff

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pfaff requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a random page I created, as a Wikipedia experiment, after seeing the word above a shop. I wanted to see if the page would last or not. Obviously it hasn't, but never mind. ;) TurboForce (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect that trivial page to last so long lol. TurboForce (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Asbestos ceiling.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of DiskTune for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DiskTune 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/DiskTune 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. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Word processor grey.png

The file File:Word processor grey.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future use.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]