Talk:Xming

message: I agree that more info needs to be added on what Xming is, but the correct approach is to take it slowly and ensure that information is accurate, appropriate and added in the correct style. There doesn't need to be a desperate rush to add tutorials to the article, and a rootless X server for Windows is useful for considerably more than getting terminal sessions to Unix boxes. Chris Cunningham 08:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanatory text 

message: Is the default xming installation (windows) completely portable? That is, does it leave any configuration settings / registry entries? AmontonarPapeles (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is portable: http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Ubuntu_for_Windows SF007 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portability 

message: There have been several attempts to add information to this article pertaining to the unique donation-centered release cycle of Xming. Most of these comments in the past have been tacked on without consideration for total accuracy or neutrality - probably because the contributors were displeased with the fact that the project's most recent development trees are not freely available. I have attempted to work this information back into the article by presenting it in a more detailed format with citations, but I'm concerned that this may vanish again. I would prefer it if any disputes over the presentation of this information be worked out here instead of with an undo that lacks annotations. Brevantes (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current contents are reasonable, although what with being entirely referenced to the terma and conditions are of rather dubious additional value.  We need coverage in reliable secondary sources for all of this kind of thing to move it beyond minor advert status. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understandable, I have no objections to these citations being pulled later once it seems that the information is less likely to be contested. I was mostly following the guideline for Verifiability on that one. The main reason for linking the Terms and Conditions was due to the one year of Website Release availability not being mentioned with the core of the Donations information, making it a bit of a slippery slope and ripe for potential editing out. All of this is moot of the article fails to achieve notability though, yes. Brevantes (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, it got reverted anyway. I give up, there is far too much emotion and politics wrapped up in this article. Brevantes (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War RE: Donations 

message: I myself am a donor to the Xming project who has both an interest in its continued development, and in the proper handling of information in this article and its talk page. Too much focus is being placed on the doctoring of information that may be attacks on the author, when the life of the article itself is in jeopardy due to Wikipedia's Notability standard. I'd like to ask everyone to please review WP:TPG and WP:RPA before participating in any further edits of existing comments on this page. I direct this at both sides: avoid language that may be construed as a personal attack (stick to verifiable facts, avoid hostile tone), refrain from editing comments that aren't yours whenever possible, and don't ignore one policy to your benefit just because someone else is ignoring a different one. The rest of us are here to help moderate; please let us. Brevantes (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There have mainly been attacks on the author here. Please remove all defamatory comments and their history...including any I made...they must not remain in public. It's offensive and totally against site policy. Or just do a TOG or a RPA or an RIP or whatever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.107.196 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is currently being discussed on 62.3.'s user talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I have attempted to provide the notability requirements for this page via third-party references by fairly notable organizations, Novell and Linux.com. At least these are independent industry trade reviews and should satisfy a base level of support for WP inclusion. I don't know why this article stirs so many emotions, as the software project is clearly notable as such, outside of WP, irrespective of people's likes or dislikes of its licensing terms. Kbrose (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to deal with these worries is to give a reliable and independent source (other than the Xming website) for any assertion made in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page edit wars 

message: A new user, User:PeaceTea, is trying to delete the article again. Since it is obvious that this user account has been specifically created in the attempt to delete this article, the edit as well as the account creation must be considered a subversion of WP rules, TBD. I request administrator intervention to revert the attempt, identify the user and block this user. This action cannot be considered good faith editing of Wikipedia and must stop. Kbrose (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let the AfD run, wider input from editors will only help (I do note that my own wording was lifted for the nom and I likely know who's behind the userame). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking into this further, I've blocked PeaceTea for block evasion and will close the AfD as having been created by a block-evading user. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New dishonest attempts to delete this article

message: Owing to server side changes at straightrunning.com the Xming website is no longer available through en.Wikipedia links and hence it cannot be verifiably cited as web content. There may be web mirrors or archives which can be cited, but owing to the unreliability/unavailability of straightrunning.com, please don't refer to that URL or any if its subpages. It's true that copy-pasting URLs to that domain straight into a browser address window will get one to the content and one could put the URLs into citations in an unclickable way, but this may not last, since pages could still be renamed and menus redone on the server side. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. It isn't important that someone can reach it from here, though it's clearly nice and convenient if they can. What matters is verifiability - a large number of articles and facts in the wiki are cited to books that are not online at all, or pages that later vanish or move, compared to which a website configured to need a separate browser session to access is a complete non-issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Off-line books are still verifiable, web pages with names which have been changed and swapped with attack pages are not verifiable. Likewise, books and web pages which can no longer be found are no longer verifiable sources, any editor can remove them if the assertion they support is disputed in good faith. Care must be taken, however, that the source is truly gone: Often it'll be found in an archive of some kind. Either way, we can't cite URLs which are likely to be made into attack pages in an ongoing spat with Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The website is now working for wikipedia users, so I was bold and re-added it... SF007 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing the Xming website 

message: Although Xming is either on the edge of notability following WP:ORG or falls a bit short, users who edit articles about software programs on en.Wikipedia have long held them to somewhat lower notability standards, carrying such content so long as verifiability can be had on narrowly targeted IT websites and there are hints of a meaningful user base. I'm here only as a clueless admin, so I'm neutral as to the notability of this topic but nevertheless, given how editors tend to handle these topics, it seems unlikely to me that this article could now be deleted through an AfD. That said, a good faith AfD put forth by an experienced editor wouldn't be untowards, since the wider input brought by AfDs often does bring help to strengthen article content if the article winds up being kept. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, my impression is that AfDs are sometimes used as fishing exercises, having other editors look for sources, the nominee could not care to look for himself.  I'm clueless on this topic as well, but I will hold that deletion is the last resort, not the first one. (once read this statement in our deletion policy but cant find it now)  Power.corrupts (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability of this topic 

message: A added a reference yesterday only to see it removed shortly after by Cunningham, the very same editor who has tagged the page as unreferenced and with notability concerns.  Now I added four other independent sources that find it worthwhile to mention this freeware stuff software, I also added some text from the sources, in order to provide inline citations.  This is probably as good as it ever gets for this kind of freeware wizardry, and the main purpose for the citations is to move the ongoing notability discussion forward and, hopefully, resolve it.  I would be much obliged, if editors who maintain very high notability and inclusion standards would look for sources, and perhaps even add some.  Power.corrupts (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I go by "Chris" or "user:thumperward" if you're planning on keeping it formal, thanks. The new references are good (heh); the "reference" that I removed was just a link to the pthreads-32 home page, which isn't an appropriate use of the footnotes system. I'll have a look for more references in future, hopefully; now that the author has taken his ball and gone home we're forced to find secondary sources for things like the license change, which is really a blessing in disguise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In every dark cloud... Gwen Gale (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added references 

message: The sources provided do not demonstrate the notability of this topic. The books make only the most passing reference to it. The only significant reference is a Novell white paper which I don't find to be an RS within the meaning of N. I am retagging the article. Bongomatic 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002220717/http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Xming to http://www.straightrunning.com/XmingNotes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified