I will fight to keep out any twisted or manufatured facts in this article (like those from Hoffman, who has no idea what he is talking about). I maintain this article in order to keep it fair and balanced, and none of this criticism has been from a reliable soure. Did you see the locking of all of the announcements he made on his forum, or were you too busy listening to his "facts" about BitComet to notice? (With a topic like "why BitComet devs are stupid", how can he not be POV?)Īnd as for the spammer assumption, there are a lot of IP's that vandalise and just put their own POV stuff on articles like this one (due to its controversy, from which has grown far more). He also refused to let anyone converse with him on the subject. I am indeed saying that Hoffman is not a reputable source when it comes to clients other then his own, as is evidenced by his ban. ".another spammer." - "Spammer" for what, exactly? (None of the bittorrent clients are payware.) Should others assume that you are a "spammer" for BitComet, and just trash your material willy-nilly under the same principle?- 76.17.171.199 06:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Reply Are you honestly maintaining that somebody could coin/create a term and a technology which has its own Wikipedia entry, but nevertheless not be a credible or noteworthy source on matters concerning it? ".the POV stuff you saw was from a published news source." - It wasn't in quotation marks, (unlike the Hoffman quote I provided, which was sourced to a TorrentFreak article quoting him, and TorrentFreak is "published" on the web just like Slyck). (I may have reverted to an entry containing them, but I did not write them.) ".And Hoffman is not a reliable source." - Hoffman is the author of a bittorrent client and the creator of super-seeding. ".it was you who put them there in the first place." - That is not true. Darthnader37 05:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Reply ".The template was just to tell you to start working on the talk page." - Try "See Talk" in the edit comments that's what most people do.
So nothing I did was in bad faith, it was merely in response to what I saw as another spammer initally. And the POV stuff you saw was from a published news source, slyck, which can be viewed as a reliable news source here on wikipedia. He is no more trustworthy then any other fanatic, as I have seen no true proof to back up his claims. And Hoffman is not a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Attribution, as he has a fringe opinion and no editorial oversight. , and it was you who put them there in the first place, which made me assume bad faith, as spammers put forum postto backl up assumptions. And as for the found post removal, I did not see them in the history when I viewed it. Some IP's can be rather difficult, and I thought it was the most direct way to do it. The template was just to tell you to start working on the talk page. Based on all this contributing evidence, I am finding it difficult to believe that your deletions are not being made in bad-faith.- 76.17.171.199 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Reply.Darthnader37 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)" - Pot, you are calling a kettle black.and why is it that whenever I see one of those things, I am the first person who actually has to post in Talk to "work toward concensus"? Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. I don't appreciate your cut-n-pasted threats on my user-page: "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war.You claimed I "removed no forum refs" in your revert comments - when I clearly did in fact remove several forum posts referenced as sources.I think you are equally well aware of the fact that John Hoffman meets Wikipedia criteria as a notable source, his quotation is pertinent to the topic, and especially since it regards an ongoing controversy and was issued in January 2007, meaning it's also timely.Why are you attempting to jam them together under the DHT heading (the one which has been resolved)? I think you are well aware that the DHT and superseed/download issues are separate controversies.This: ".the controversy surrounding the DHT feature actually helped popularize the client, the public seeing the DHT exploit merely as an error on the part of the developer." is unsourced POV spam, and I think you're smart enough to know it.
0 kommentar(er)
