Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:13, 2 August 2009

Template:Findsourcesnotice

External Links

The current external links bare no weight to this article and will be removed. --Hm2k (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been warned to stop doing this on multiple pages throughout wikipedia. If you continue to vandalize wikipedia you will be blocked from editing.

Dren (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? My edits are inline with Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Your edits will be reverted in-line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines.

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

--Hm2k (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, no one has been adding anything, you've been the one removing things that have been on the page for years... for the past month. Dren (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this here before making anymore revisions.

Dren (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing.

--Hm2k (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't added anything, I've only been maintaining the integrity of the article against vandals like you. Why did you delete the references section?

Dren (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it.

When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert.

The article is unreferenced to justify a references section.

Please review the warnings I have placed on the article.

--Hm2k (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not blanking out page, again.

Dren (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never blanked the page, I have however removed anything that was considered unencyclopaedia and will do so unless the issues are resolved. --Hm2k (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's quite enough arguing, thank you. Dren, the link you are adding does not meet WP:EL (see WP:ELNO). But instead of continually reverting, and sniping at each other on the talk page, seek dispute resolution or a third opinion. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's under control now, thanks anyway. --Hm2k (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed links

Out of the 4 links that were removed from the External links section, one did not go to a directory/list and appeared to be linkspam but I don't personally see a problem with the other 3 links that were removed. Those links do meet the external links guideline and had been included in the article for quite some time.

• Jan's list of free shell providers
• ClueNet's free shell providers list
• Mitja's list of free shell providers

I do think the current Dmoz link is better than the original one, since the original link only linked to the "Free Shells" subgroup of "Unix Shell Providers".
--Tothwolf (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the relevance? This page is about "shell accounts", at a push "shell providers". Can you explain to me the relevance of "list of free shell providers" to this article? Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the external links section should contain a listing of Shell providers, these can be beneficial for the users looking for an account, and can also serve as the listing point for the additional new shell provider entries (we can avoid single add-ons by pointing users to the external lists). These links served well in the past inside of this article. -- Prunk (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a list, provided via DMOZ, which is linked from the article. The other links were simply inappropriate and unrelated. --Hm2k (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The links I mentioned above that you removed are perfectly acceptable per the external links guideline. DMOZ is not able to provide as much information as those links provide (two are comparison charts) and all of these links are comparison/directory links. I think the current DMOZ link combined with the links above is a much better solution. While I agree 100% with your change of "Historical free shell account providers" to "Shell providers" (this article should not be restricted to only covering "free shell providers") I do not see anything being gained from the removal of the links mentioned above. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Those links don't appear to add anything to the article, they offer the same content and don't appear to be very established/reliable sources. There are way more established sites that list shell account providers.. I also found an article on slashdot about shell accounts that could be reference. --Hm2k (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments still don't hold water and I intend to restore these links within the next few days. The links meet the external links guidelines and two are to updated versions of List of free shell providers which was transwikied after having been deleted because it failed WP:NOT. While wikipedia might not be a good place for List of free shell providers, providing links to such directories are perfectly acceptable. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't within the guidelines. If you add them, they will be removed and reported. Don't waste your time. --Hm2k (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, they are indeed acceptable per the external links guideline. You seem to be the only one taking issue with links that a number of other editors decided were acceptable. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you check the DMOZ link a little better, it contains a list of shell providers which is outdated. You can click on the links and you will notice that 50% of the links will bring you to non-existing website. So why not put a link to the lists of shell accounts which are accurate, instead ? It also meets the wikipedias external links guideline, there is no need to remove it. Prunk (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken, check #12 of WP:ELNO. We don't need a forth opinion, considering an impartial third opinion has already been given by PeterSymonds further up, who said "the link you are adding does not meet WP:EL (see WP:ELNO)" when referring the links in question. I agree that the DMOZ links are outdated (as is most of DMOZ) however it is a reliable source that is recognised by wikipieda and thus worth keeping. It's not all bad though, instead of adding these links back, i've proposed some others, that I'd consider "better", mainly because they have been around a lot longer and are more appropriate to this article. Both AckyNet's ShellSearch.com and egghelp.org's list of shell providers have been around for as long as I can remember and are still very well maintained. --Hm2k (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

These fall under WP:ELYES #3. Furthermore, the "wiki link" you are complaining about is maintained by User:Cobi, the same Cobi who runs User:ClueBot. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELYES #3 does not support your argument, there's quite a few reasons it was removed, not copyright, too much detail or anything like that though. I'm in agreement with the "lack of notability" issues, which questions the accuracy of the content.

All that aside, my main issue is that the links simply aren't appropriate to the article. This article is about what a "shell account" is, not a list of "free shell providers", the article doesn't even mention "free shell providers".

My suggestion would be to find notability, which is what I suggested in the section below, this will give you way more context to work with.

--Hm2k (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you just can't stand to lose an argument can you? The AfD you linked to above has nothing to do with including a link here. The notability guideline has nothing to do with a link or even the actual content of an article. The notability guideline states: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Your argument thus far has been and continues to be flawed and a logical fallacy. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your claims. I think I've made my position on this clear enough, I don't need to add anything else. Wait for the third/forth opinion. --Hm2k (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm quoting the notability guideline. The notability guideline has nothing to do with links or the actual content of an article. Whether you like it or not, there isn't much you can disagree with there. You've argued relevance, reliable sources, external links guidelines, and the notability guideline– none of which are an issue here, and reliable sources and the notability guideline are not even applicable to external links.
PS: pulling this stunt and removing references because you don't like what I've had to say is not going to gain you any brownie points with anyone.
--Tothwolf (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now. My goal is to improve the article, I'm not trying to score points, pull stunts, do wheelies, or anything else. Do you want to improve the article or just continue to argue and add irrelevant external links? --Hm2k (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how it is your edit warring over the external links the {{3O}} template and now removing references (which were fine in the manner in which they were used) contributes towards improving this article? --Tothwolf (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you read the edit summaries? Its clear from those links that i've improved the article. Inappropriate links were simply deleted. I don't think we needed a 3O, however as you continue to argue, I'm happy to invite another third opinion to resolve this matter. --Hm2k (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also "Note: You must list your dispute at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion in order for editors to respond. If you do not make a request at WP:3O, the template will be removed." -- You haven't done this, did you want me to do it? --Hm2k (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I see it was added about an hour ago, although it was inaccurate, so I've updated it. --Hm2k (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to the third opinion request: In my opinion a list of links to lists of free shell providers fails to meet the guidance of WP:DIRECTORY. The current Open Directory Project link does meet WP:ELMAYBE and as the guidance suggests there, a single such link is sufficient and in this case meets the needs of a reader to find all significant examples of shell accounts.—Teahot (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you cleared this up for us. I think we can we agree that no further action needs to be taken. --Hm2k (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this does not resolve things at all. You changed the 3O request First you try removing the 3O template 3 times, then you change the request. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the links you seem to hate so much (which the other editors here also find acceptable) are comparison tables and contain a lot of detail, they are not simple "lists of providers". These are more than acceptable per WP:ELYES #3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." If you are trying to argue the WP:DIRECTORY thing (which IMO is not an issue here as this is very small number of links, which have actually served well in the past to keep people from adding links here), then the links that you just added are also not acceptable. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Hm2k Can you tell us what is the difference between the Acky.net and Eggdrop.org lists, which in your opinion meet the standards for external links, and why you keep deleting the primary shell comparison charts (which are by the way more accurate and checked for valid shell providers) ? I don't understand why you have double standards/measures ? -- AndrejDo (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles here. This matter has already been resolved twice by using a third opinion. I see no point in continuing this discussion. If you have a new issue with new links, please start a new discussion in a new section. --Hm2k (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been resolved twice. The first you claim to be a 3O was an admin who told you and Dren to knock it off the arguing and edit warring. The second you claim you changed the 3O request after you previously removed the {{3O}} template from the article 3 times. Stop trying to bury the discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Another third opinion? --Hm2k (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute

This dispute is regarding the links removed in this edit.

Do you agree or disagree with the edit? The following questions should assist your decision:

1. Are the links appropriate to the article?
2. Are the links useful content-relevant links?
3. Are the links are acceptable as external links?

Please can I invite any other editors that have not already expressed their opinion to do so now.

This debate should be open for no longer than 5 days, after which a third opinion will be invited to make the final decision with the arguments and opinions left here in mind.

Editors who have already contributed to the discussion are encouraged not to partake.

--Hm2k (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since no further comments were added within the time frame, I am assuming no further action is required and that this matter is resolved.

If you disagree, please add a comment within the next 5 days. --Hm2k (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You sure seem to like to twist things and play with the icon templates... You do not moderate or decide what should or should not be included in this article. The other editors involved here all have reverted your removal of links at least once and some cases multiple times. That alone makes it quite clear that your removal of those links is going against consensus here. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you disagree. The next step is to open another WP:3O or an RFC with neutral wording. I propose the first 5 lines under this heading. Do you agree? --Hm2k (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose an RFC is raised with the following question in order to resolve the issue:

Are the links removed in this edit appropriate for the Shell account article?

Do you agree or disagree with this request? I will allow 5 days to respond, otherwise wp:silence will apply. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, WP:SILENCE does not apply here, what applies here is WP:GAME in your continued attempt to game the system. People are also tired of your edit warring and are largely ignoring you. Furthermore, the wording you propose is biased, misleading, and contains a false analogy in that it uses a piped wikilink for appropriate to WP:LINKSPAM. "Linkspam" is a negative connotation and linking this and asking if the links you edit warred over to remove are appropriate is yet again another attempt to mislead others so that they logically have to agree with you (i.e. linkspam == bad, removed links == linkspam, links == inappropriate). The links you removed could not even remotely be considered "linkspam". The "replacement" links you've added to the article actually would be much easier to classify as linkspam as the "replacement" links contain banner ads. Kudos to you for being so darned sneaky but some of us are on to your game.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." The previous list of links was excessive/redundant, you don't need ten links to the same thing. Triplestop x3 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My only previous comment here was as a third party but I would like to pick up on the accusation of gaming and I am therefore stepping out of the role of third party. Reading the text above, Hm2k has made a proposal for an RFC giving 5 days for responses before proceeding. The guidance at WP:RFC only states "it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first", so this appears to me to be a reasonable way of finalizing the already lengthy discussion here and agreeing the text of a potential RFC before going ahead and raising it. I would do something similar as a courtesy for other editors. Can I suggest that Tothwolf proposes some alternative text for an RFC that can be considered more neutral or propose an alternative acceptable dispute resolution process?—Ash (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no other way to resolve this. I'd be happy for Tothwolf to propose the request, so long as we can all agree that the wording is neutral. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I realise I did not give a time frame for this to be actioned. I set 5 days from now as a reasonable time for Tothwolf to propose an RFC or wp:silence will apply and I will consider this issue resolved. --Hm2k (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First Hm2k, you do not dictate the time frame or set the terms here. Second, it wouldn't matter if you consider something resolved or not, it will remain unresolved until it is resolved.
As for an RFC, an RFC at this stage would be inappropriate for what amounts to one editor (you) being in dispute with the other editors who have worked on this article. Following the normal progression order for this type of thing, the next stage would be informal mediation. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So, even for that one of us needs to propose a neutral request, since you rejected mine, I am requesting you propose one. So far you have failed to provide one. This suggests you are unwilling to resolve this. Are you willing to propose a request? I'll allow 5 days for a response before I take this further. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There is no deadline, the world won't end in 5 days. Dictating time frames is not how we work here on Misplaced Pages. I suggest that everyone cool down a bit. -- Cobi 10:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice false analogy. Now it's my turn to tell you knock it off. You didn't like what I had to say == "So far you have failed to provide one. This suggests you are unwilling to resolve this." --Tothwolf (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way. I'm going to call troll on this and won't engage in any further discussion on this matter unless you use a proper dispute resolution process. I'm fed up of this dickery. --Hm2k (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think DR is necessary, you should go ahead and start the process. I can tell you from experience that Tothwolf is unlikely to do so himself. I'd suggest starting with WP:3O. I'd rather not give an opinion myself as Tothwolf has engaged in disputes with me previously and if I take your side he may claim it's for other reasons... Yworo (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

At the moment all the recent notability I can find about shell accounts relates to the Foonet DDoS attacks back in 2005. . These don't really explain what a shell account is, just that they were traded -- something that's not even mentioned in the article. I did however find this which is a fairly feeble attempt to describe what a BNC is and that you apparently need a shell account to run one. Another (German) article describes a shell account used for a warez FTP server. We need a reliable source that explains what a shell account is and what they are meant to be used for. Any ideas? --Hm2k (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few references from the Internet about the shell account Egghelp, Tidbits, MV Communications, Arbornet, The Free Dictionary, Queens University, Berkeley University -- Prunk (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure they are classed as reliable sources... Not even the Berkeley one as it's a wiki with no citations. I was looking at citing a book but this uses wikipedia as a reference... Not reliable. And another, which uses wikipedia as a source... It seems to me like the only places talking about shell accounts are using wikipedia as a source, which was written by us... I did find this that seems to the oldest reference to what a shell account is that I could find, however since it's written by 1 person, it might not be considered a reliable source. However, two separate non-commercial references may be sufficient. --Hm2k (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "shell account" comes from the terms Unix shell and Unix account. Unix shell account also redirects to this article. The term "Unix account" has long since fallen out of favour due to the fact that Unix-like (not true Unix) multi-user systems are often the norm now rather than the exception. When I did a Google Books search for "shell account", I got 648 hits. A search for "Unix shell account" resulted in 163 hits. Notability really isn't an issue here per the notability guideline, but finding books that cover this topic in depth using this specific term may take some work. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The term actually comes from Shell (computing). What i'm trying to find is something that describes a shell account in the context described in the article, that's not using wikipedia as a reference. Not having much luck so far, not even in books. --Hm2k (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)