Talk:RemoteAccess

message: * --- woo wooo! :D Mroblivious1bmf 01:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

message: For the moment I've aquiesqued on Mroblivious1bmf's request not to post on his talk page, until  my request for a third opinion on the matter is resolved.  As it's affecting editing of this article, I'm going to have to ask you to stop being paranoid about me hating your or this article.  I'm only trying to improve its quality.  At the time it was nominated for deletion there were concerns that have since been addressed, and I'm not going to worry about them.
The problem that I'm trying to address(and some other anonymous user was as well) is that external links is being used improperly according to wikipedia standards.  Among the relavent points here are that it is generally assumed that users can browse a website, and thus multiple links to pages the same website are unnecessary when the website as a whole addresses the same general subject, and that external links section should be a relatively small portion of the article.
References are a different matter, I'll be working on converting links to references where I can.  
From now on, Mroblivious1bmf, please don't accuse me of things I'm not doing(such as using a proxy or attempting to destroy an article or "harrassing" you.)  It's a violation of just about every single wikipedia policy regarding user interaction, as well as being plain old not nice. i kan reed 05:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This doesn't really belong here but

message: This is obviously already causing a bit of an edit war, so let's at least talk about it fully.  As it stands, the external links are against standards.  On most pages, within the external links section, websites are only linked once.  On this page, almost all of the links go to subpages of the same site.  Typically in these instances, it is common to reduce all such links to one link to the main page.  I'm going to let this discussion sit here a couple of days and if no one objects, I'm going to move to that standard, and indicate complaints should be brought to the talk page first.  If anyone has any other opinions on the matter, I'd like to hear them.   i kan reed 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings and salutations! Agree that multiple links to the same website are not needed. The BBS Archives are easy enough to navigate for the average punter to be able to find the relevant subsections. (Conflicts of interest: I amalgamated the links yesterday without realising that this was a contentious issue, so apologies!)Mmoneypenny 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge there was only one objection, and I never quite understood the reasons why.  I was merely trying to get some discussion about it.  Sadly, the objecter was banned for personal attacks against me, which sure as heck doesn't help determine what the objection is.  As such I went ahead and made the changes without waiting the time period, and if anyone changes is back, we can hope they discuss it here.  Also, that was a good edit you made. i kan reed 20:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links disucssion

message: Hi Mark,
I just wanted to point out to you that while PC Micro is no longer a Fidonet member, I continue to provide support for RemoteAccess even today, and I am activly developing freeware RA utils such as NetFoss (which reached version 0.9.7 today) ;)
I was running a web-based RA Support forum up until the end of 2004, and currently support is still provided via email.
Granted that today very few sysops still run RemoteAccess, and I've only taked to a handful of RA sysops in the past year compared to EleBBS which currently has over 90 active sysops I know of.
Anyways, I noticed you removed the statement that PC Micro was a RA Support site, so I undid your removal and added a few more things. Please give me a call if you wish to discuss it. 805-493-8388. Thanks!
Regards,  Mike
Pcmicro 03:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To: Wkitty 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*telnet://ccbbs.zapto.org:2323
*:Triggered by zapto\.org on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page