SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Square (cipher) Anubis (cipher) Akelarre (cipher) Trustworthy Computing Sanjayan Thuraisingam SEED Operation Pin MISTY1 Substitution–permutation network CS-Cipher Product cipher Tugtupite DEAL CAST-256 Tamil Eelam Army MMB REDOC Cryptomeria cipher Tipton

Cleanup Brute force attack Religious views of suicide Teenage suicide Merge Self-help NESSIE Database administrator Add Sources The Heart of the Matter Iraqi block cipher MaraDNS Wikify Cool Joke Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades Ananda College Expand Audi A4 IEC connector Block cipher

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the MojoPac opening para with some relevant new information that reduces its ad-like qualities and brings it very much up to date. This is based on my own recent experiences searching for a useful product in this space, and it is exactly the sort of info that someone such as myself needs to know while doing so to short-circuit the process and find a current, working product. If it is non-NPOV, perhaps change one or two words to render it NPOV rather than reverting the whole addition and placing the article 2 years out of date again, which is basically an ad for a now unsupporterd product which has ceased development. See also my comments on the 'discussion' page. --Sean01 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your edit only needed "just one or two words", I'd have changed it to be more WP:NPOV myself, however the edits you put in would require a rewrite in order to do this.

Ok, one or two words and one or two citations. Lack of citations is not enough reason to revert an entry and send it back 2 years in time, especially when all the info I have put up is on the MojoPac site, if you look around enough, e.g. at press releases. We're talking 3-4 sentences here to give interested parties a heads-up.

You're clearly hostile towards this product (seemingly very much in favor of Ceedo), and that's clearly shown in your comments. Going through the changes you made:

Not at all hostile. I just downloaded it and was disappointed to find it had been discontinued, and got an autoemail from the support people saying the same. (And how do I cite the commercial email sent to me exactly?) The point was made on forums that the Vista version is limited to 30 days, and on downloading it, lo and behold, it was correct. last press releases are in 2008 for this product. The other issue is mobility between Windows versions, which is also not there -- the MojoPac people admit on thir Vista beta it is something not in the beta they were aiming for back in 2007 which obviously never went ahead. They simply discontinued all development and ceased support of the product at this point.

MojoPac is now desupported by RingCube Technologies

Citation?

As above. On their website, when you download the product. Just because you can't find it doesn't mean it's not there. Try using 'google', an interesting new web product. or try sending an email to their support address and wait for the autoreply to that effect.

and the only freely useable version of MojoPac is the Windows XP version, which is a deprecated operating system from Microsoft. The Windows Vista version of MojoPac remains in beta

The fact it runs under Windows XP is covered quite clearly in the "requirements" section. Whether Microsoft continue to support XP is irrelevant.

It's relevant and interesting to someone trying to assess the product and reading the intro para to gain an impression of the product without having to read to the very last para. that's why it's in there. change one or two words then, as I requested, if you're upset about the fact that the product only works on XP, an OS being phased out by MS two versions behind the current version which is receiving no more service packs.

when development ceased in May 2008,

Citation? If vDesk is superceeding Mojopac, then while technically true, this is a bit misleading without a comment to that effect.

They're totally different sorts of products. One is free and unsupported and not undergoing further development by the company's report, via email, the other is a very expensive enterprise product more in the VMWare ThinApp space. It's spelt 'supercede', by the way.

and is time-limited to 30 days use before expiry on each installation.

I haven't tested it, though AIUI v2.0 is free (that's what the download link shows, anyway)?

Well, i have, and it's a 30 day beta trial, and it is free (for that reason). I tihnk if they were developing it they would have gotten the Vista version out by now, don't you?

As the product is no longer supported or actively developed, a Windows 7 certified version is highly unlikely, unless the product line is revived.

This is pure supposition/WP:OR on your part

Try contacting tech support for an answer on that -- they never write back on anything. I think it's a fair assumption. Assumptions are sometimes made on wikpedia.

RingCube are now focusing efforts on their RingCube vDesk product line, an enterprise level desktop virtualization solution.

Quite possibly, but this does needs a citation; if vDesk superceeds Mojopac, this should be made clearer.

It doesn't 'supercede' it, they simply aren't developing MojoPac anymore. As explained above, it's a bigger, dearer enterprise package. maybe RingCube would like to adjust their own wikipedia entry on this matter, as they have simply pasted in an ad 2 years ago and left it since then, which is why the entry was queried in the first place in the banner.

Ceedo Personal offers a similar functionality to MojoPac across Windows XP, Vista and 7 and is currently supported.

...and you round it all off with an add for Ceedo?!

No, not an ad, that is the only other product like it, at low or free cost. The average browser would be interested to hear that, as that is the presumed reason they are lookign at the entry, which was out of date. U3 is also mentioned below, but it has different attributes requiring software mods. If another similar, low cost or free package comes along, I suggest we modify the MojoPac article further to include it. When that happens.

I've no problem with MojoPac being updated, but let's keep it even, OK? I've reverted your edits (again), and did try to update the article with some of the above, but without citations for any of it, that's pretty difficult to do (I couldn't find any suggestion of what you were claiming on either the Mojopac or Ringcube WWW sites). I did change a few things however, like adding an infobox, and it missed out the fact admin rights are required in covering it's usage. I've also removed the "ad" comment at the top (it does include a comparison with other similar products), and removed the "features" section as this adds nothing (it's functionality you'd expect anyway from a virtualization system)

It is a deliberately opaque, simple and uninformative site. That's the nature of some commercial operations. as noted above, try sending an email to the suport email and read the autoreply you receive. then figure out how to cite it.

If you can find citations for what you've got above though, I'd be happy to help phrase it in a more WP:NPOV way. Nuwewsco (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to report this unnecessary interference in the update to wikipedia for arbitration. you have cancelled the changes too soon and for inadequate reason, rather than modding them. there are dozens of pages on wiki lacking citations that never get addressed, and you should just have flagged those components as such, not reverted the entry. (although they are a matter of opinion also.) too heavy-handed and too arrogant, and it's going on report against your username; I'm capturing this screen for the record.

The entire original article is written as an ad, and flagged as such, and yet you don't mod that, and leave it up as an ad for 2 years. The product is now almost useless for all intents and purposes, as it was designed to be portable between OSes, or at least useable on contemporary OSes -- this is no longer the case. A portable virtualisation product that will not work on most OSes -- in fact, only works on one superceded OS -- should be commented on as such, and not just in the new 'infobox' you've just added, after neglecting the entry for 2 years. The Ceedo product continues to be supported and continues to be developed to work on a number of contemporay OSes, including Windows 7. Also, I think it's pretty ridiculous to 'cite' web forum posts that could be taken down tomorrow or deleted to change the order and permalink, and then insist that anyone who doesn't cite to that level can't amend a wiki post. That's just anal. Please let me know how you intend to cite a person commercial email that's sent out by a private company also. Wikipedia cannot claim to be be a supposedly non-OR NPOV encyclopedia on the one hand, then leave up this ad for 2 years on the other unedited, which also contains OR information that 'Windows Vista will be supported' -- information which is also conjecture at the time it was written, and is still on the article and 1) out of date, and 2) misleading. This is esentially an XP-only product still, with a very limited Vista version. Both have been abandoned for 2 years by the company. The main aim of portability software like MojoPac is that it can be moved at least to a variety of contemporary Windows OSes, if not Mac or Linux-based systems. Wikipedia cannot in reality be updated and edited in realtime without having some small measure of opinion or conjecture on it, and it's precious to pretend otherwise, regardless of what the OR policy says. Have you read the Britney Spears entry lately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean01 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed your edits on the IronKey page, and just wanted to discuss them quickly--specifically the bundled software list. I originally had this included all in a single small paragraph, simply as an (I thought) encyclopedic summary of a part of what the IronKey is. Unfortunately Drew811 expanded that small summary out into what you saw, and I must admit that if you hadn't removed it, I would have thought the same as you and simply reverted it. I still feel the original paragraph contains relevant information, and would like to re-add it, but thought I'd talk to you first. Thanks! — Endareth^Talk–Edits 00:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! Originally, I just tweaked it to change what looked like a marketing-plug (that their Tor network increases security - which is debatable), but then I took a step back and realised that adding a list of bundled applications just looks like spam (IMHO).

Other USB flash drive manufacturers bundle software (typically antivirus software) as well with their devices, and it's really nothing more than a marketing ploy to help flog their product. The inclusion of McAfee's software emphasises this - I'm sure McAfee would be happy to sell you the same software without requiring anyone buy an IronKey!

Bundling software is just a promotional issue - the sofware producers are more than happy to see their software bundled - actually placing it in a potential customers hands gives them an edge over their competitors (see Microsoft bundling MS Internet Explorer in with Windows as an extreme example!) The hardware manufacturers like it, as it promotes their hardware - but the benefit to the consumer is pretty minimal. Nuwewsco (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I can see how you came to that conclusion. One difference though in this case is that the main two components of the bundled software are both written by IronKey. Admittedly the Secure Sessions software is a TOR fork, but the Identity Manager software is completely written by IronKey, and a significant component of their product (to which it is tied). It's not something that could be sold separately, and I'm not even aware of another directly competing product, as the IDM stores the account/password data in a non-user accessible area of the IronKey device. I feel that it's of sufficient interest own its own account to justify a brief mention, though probably not more than that. The other included software (anti-malware, Verisign OTP, RSA OTP, etc), as you say, isn't as notable; business partnerships are not generally as worth including. If you could take a look at my original paragraph relating to the software, I'd appreciate it. — Endareth^Talk–Edits 00:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at it, I guess that's fair enough if it's device specific. If the secure-sessions (Tor) bit is mentioned, apart from the security pros/cons of using a "private" darknet, it may be worth adding a comment to the effect that this is only available on the "Personal" version - which they recommend against for .gov and .mil use? (Though their WWW site doesn't state why though)

To be honest I've never been quite sure why they still offer the "Basic" version. I think it's a holdover from before they release the "Enterprise" version.

Identity manager-wise, IIRC there is a Keypass-lookalike(?) available which has the option of tying it's stored data to a PKCS#11 security tokens, which is effectivly the same thing; so IronKey weren't first in that regard. (I can't find the reference I had offhand)

Not really, in that case once the device is unlocked, you still be able to physically copy the encrypted data off for later attack. The IDM is safe from this attack vector.

I'm OK with them being mentioned, though without the 3rd McAfee, etc bits included - though it would be good to mention "competing" software products (e.g. Tor), and why they're notable - otherwise it just looks like promotional spam.

A couple of other things while I think of them:

1. The article gives info on IronKey, but doesn't actually say why IronKey is notable (WP:NN) - there's quite a few competing products available now, which brings me to...
2. AIUI, there's a Cruzer Enterprise is a competing (hardware) product; it would be worth linking to this page (a reciprical link is already on the Cruzer page), and also to USB flash drive security which gives a higher level overview of what these devices are all about.

Incidently, are you involved with IronKey in any way? Nuwewsco (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, I'll look at adding back in a revised version of my original, and some more links. And my only involvement with IronKey is as a dedicated fan :) Thanks for your feedback on this, I'm still fairly new to official Wikipedia edits. — Endareth^Talk–Edits 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I didn't even think it was worth mentioning it explicitly -- I realized it was an honest mistake. --Gutza ^T 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_10#Comparison_of_portable_platforms. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated an article of yours for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeOTFE. Joe Chill (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your "July 2010" post on my Talk page. What you wrote to me actually applies to you. Furthermore, the Wikipedia policy on information about living persons says this (read every word carefully and especially the last part in bold): "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced -- whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable -- should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Xnquist 12:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the warning I placed on your talk page (which I notice you pretty quickly deleted - as you did with the warnings a number of other editors gave you) isn't relevant to the reverts I made. The content you are trying to get rid of is fully backed by current Wikipedia policies.

Re your comments above, you might want to reread what you were deleting, and check your facts. The content you were so intent on getting rid of was fully referenced with (as the policy you quote actually asks for) reliable, published sources placed inline with the material. Furthermore, I'd hardly call acknowledging someone who's registered a particular trademark as either "negative" or "questionable"! It's a simple statement of a fact which is in the public domain.

As to whether it's contentious, you are the only one who wants this content deleted. You have repeatedly refused to even discuss the issue on the relevant talk page; clearly as you realise the consensus is strongly against you.

Incidently, I notice that you appear to be from .cz - the same country as the individual you're trying so badly to delete from the Wikipedia. You wouldn't happen to be the person in question, would you? If so, please say so! That would certainly put a different light on what you're trying to say Nuwewsco (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "WTF" stand for?

Try entering it into the little "Search" box above and clicking the magnifying glass. Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information!

As you have no way to know how old an editor is or their cultural background, do you think that using an acronym to a profanity in the first sentence that you write to a fellow editor is the best way to build a consensus? Would you really start a conversation with a stranger by using that expression in the fist sentence you said to them unless you were looking for a confrontation? If not why do it on Wikipedia? -- PBS (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any complied list is a derivation of a definition of terrorism it is not directly related to terrorism. If you still think it should be included then take it to the talk page and see if there is a consensus to include it. -- PBS (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reply's on Talk:Definitions_of_terrorism; this isn't relevant to a user page. Nuwewsco (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To accuse a fellow editor of talking crap is not conducive to a pleasant conversion. As to your accusation of trolling. That cuts both ways, I could equally say that by reverting a revert of a bold edit that you are just trolling for an edit war here, but that would be to blatantly ignore the assumption of good faith, and could be seen as needlessly confrontational. Indeed if there is a pattern of such behaviour it could be seen as disruptive, but you must already know that as you have been editing here for a number of years (so maybe your just having a bad hair day and do not act so aggressively, in which case please forgive me for pointing out the obvious). -- PBS (talk)

Hi, there are different translations of the Quran as I've showed you so unless you have the proof that Abul Kasem is using yours, please refrain from putting your translation in the article. Also what is needed is not your personnal challenge to his statement but someone's who is versed in Islam or even better in Islamic terrorism, otherwise it is just an original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. It would be best if you deleted your Quran citations or someone else will.--Chrono1084 (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a particularly constructive or helpful comment. Abul Kasem doesn't actually state which translation Abul Kasem chooses to use. The citation I put in is perfectly valid and relevant. It sounds like you're looking to give undue emphasis on one particular translation and ignore all others here.

You can certainly argue a case for deleting all of the currenet references to 8.39 and 47.4, but to quote a contentious passage from one translation without acknowledging that many other translations exist certainly violates WP:NPOV.

With respect to your comment about "my personnal [sic] challege to his statement" is just plain stupid. I fail to see how adding a WP:RS, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, citation can be considered "original research". Nuwewsco (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No "you're looking to give giving undue emphasis on one particular translation and ignore all others here" since you're the only one having put one in the article . All I'm doing is, like you said, "argue a case for deleting all of the currenet references to 8.39 and 47.4"--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! I've just checked the article's history - I must have been looking at some cached copy (or just plain the wrong version), as I'd swear you'd reintroduced them twice!

Sorry about that - it looks like we've been arguing the same point! Thanks for reverting it back; it looks like we're reading from the same page now (literally!) Nuwewsco (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for this clear answer.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you've got to read this and this because it talks of you and not in the best way.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF! Didn't this guy even bother to read what I wrote on his talk page?!!

It's been over a fortnight since I put in an edit to it, so I'm not sure why he thinks I'm your sockpuppet; maybe he doesn't know how to request a checkuser?

Hell - I walked away from things! It was pointless making edits to the article due to the amount of thrashing going on - the only practical way of resolving these kind of differences is to hit the talk page and hammer it out there.

Looking at the article's history, I can understand why you both got blocked though! I think that putting an edit block on the page for a week or so would have probably been better, IMHO; give things time to cool down a bit. (Both yourself and User:Jrkso seem to be long-term editors, so semi-protection wouldn't have made any difference, though fully protecting would have been an option)

Ah well... Thanks for the heads-up on this one though! Nuwewsco (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! That cheeky sod!

I've just noticed - the comment I put on your talk page is still there: User talk:Chrono1084#August 2010 - Edit warring on Prostitution in Afghanistan

But! The comment I put on User:Jrkso's page: [1] has mysteriously vanished!

Looking at the history of his talk page, it's pretty clear he selectively removed my comment immediatly after he asked to be unblocked: [2] !

I guess he figured it wouldn't help him if the admin looking at his unblock request saw a 3rd party asking both of you to take some time out over it! Nuwewsco (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nuwesco,

About your message, perhaps you'd care to re-read the sources I've provided to reassess any supposed bias. I've added three sources, from two independent outfits. All admit that a performance hit exists, but go on to talk about how small the impact is. That is, they emphasize the high performance of the software, and I've been careful not to slant that coverage. Note that it's hard to find quality sources on this topic; unsuitable sources like blogs dominate the results. What there is takes pains to point out the good performance. As soon as those articles get here, though, quotes are getting cherry-picked to emphasize *bad* performance. It's hard to find a reading of the WP:VERI policy that permits such interpretations.

In the future, especially in the absence of any sort of discussion on the talk page, I'd ask you to review the "Assume good faith" policy before alleging edit warring. You could have simply asked me what my point of view was, or just opened a talk section on the article, and there would have been a calm, civil discussion.

68.102.20.122 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit here. It was a copy-paste from an unrelated move discussion. If you compare the original with the copy the IP changed some of the votes. --Martin (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just an FYI, but I contested your PROD on this article and added a few more sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; it still seems pretty weak though - the only significant reference among those currently listed is that MI5 use the term though - the rest all sound like the media picking up on a Wikileaks soundbyte, which is hardly WP:RS? Nuwewsco (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing isn't great at this point, but I think that enough newspapers have discussed the phenomena, or at least used the term, to indicate some notability. The page still needs some work, but I think there is enough to stave off deletion for now. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]