Talk:NANOG Glossary
From NANOG
peering links
why do these need to be here as specifics when the glossry entries are clearly neutral references to lists of acronyms? It doesnt fit. Thats why they got sliced.
(Please sign your entries)
A Glossary is not just acronyms; the text here has always said "terms and acronyms". How is a one-word entry like "peering" not neutral? If I'm not mistaken, you were the one who indicated that the astrutrufed definitions in wikipedia are to be avoided, so why on earth keep any definitions that are in the wiki buried and not just list them here?
--jzp 13:58, 19 September 2006 (GMT)
There's already a full section on peering and other terms elsewhere. Why be redundant and double the astro turfing or create the potential for editors to mark up one and not the other and have dissimiliar articles?
--Marty 14:48, 19 September 2006 (GMT)
I'm still confused - these links do in fact point to these 'other sections on peering' that you mention. This is a simple act of cross-linking to provide multiple vectors. Newbie looks at main page, and the likely actions to look up a term will be the serach box or the prominently listed glossary, no? Cross-linking internally in a wiki is a Good Thing.
--jzp 20:23, 19 September 2006 (GMT)
I'm sorry you are confused. The original links were "new" content unrelated to the links contained elsewhere in the site, perhaps confused by the astroturfing that is already underway.
Why don't you put the links in that you think should be there and I can take a look and see if we are discussing the same? I'd use the history function, but let's be sure.
--Marty 21:07, 19 September 2006 (GMT)
Exactly what I thought. Your content was not the content we
were discussing. I'd 'watch' this page.
--Marty 03:06, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
What? I didn't change anything since my restoral. "My" content was the peering content under discussion. The links that are here are thes that have been and are linked to content that's been there since 24 August, when I re-organized the mailing list page and split things out to follow the 'less scrolling is good' principle. It's been on this page since 26 August.
In future, please just use the history. There are nice defaults for watching pages you work on; I know and use them. You might want to look at checking the 'recent changes' too.
Again, on the previous discussion, you were adamant that this wiki's definitions should stand apart from the astroturfed wikipedia entries. Definitions are what make up a Glossary. This page is titled glossary, therefore links for the definitions went here. If you see any astroturking then please do point out the astroturfing you seem to see on the talk page for that content. I have yet to see any, and it would be interesting for me to have a peering outsider's perspective.
--jzp 11:33, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
Evasive as usual. Participate as in if you're going to whine about Talk:, then use it.
As far as templates go, it's a Wiki. Isn't that what you're here for? Have a blast. :)
--Marty 23:41, 28 February 2007 (GMT)
Other internal links
I presume the other internal links that you removed are things you found to be a problem, though you complained about the un-changed peering ones. What about the RIR, which was here before? While Default-Free Zone and Global Routing Table links are "new", if they are wrong maybe they should be fixed rather than clipped off? While 'global routing table' might be too much training wheels, the default-free zone one definitely fits into the previously-existing Default-free BGP which was a natural child of one of the normal 'technical questions' on memory requirements.
Rather than complain HERE, please complain ON to the page with which you have trouble, since it is ambiguous otherwise. I'm not sure what level of "new" is ok to you and what isn't, so you better spell it ut -- given your request to ban, it might just be implied that anything mdillopn added, even if it is on-target, is going to generate a complaint from you?
There's undoubtably going to be more definitions, "new" content, and other people participating as this goes on. I'd stringly suggest that you keep you comments related to a page or article on the article rather than on something linked to an article so your stones hit the target.
--jzp 11:33, 20 September 2006 (GMT)
This is the main page and this is what was in question, obviously, since someone had decided that the content should be different in multiple locations and the pointer _here_ was wrong. It's quite obvious that this is the page that was the problem and that this is the correct place to "complain", or do you mean discuss?
--Marty 19:44, 22 September 2006 (GMT)
Removing content by arbitrary whim doesn't help anyone. If you do not wish to co-operate to create a standard by which this place operates, at least can any of the other users expect you to abide by your own "24 hour discussion" timeline? I'm reverting changes since in-wiki links are better; heck, you yourself were the one who said "we should be authoritative" in reference to wikipedia-bashing.
jzp 04:34, 28 February 2007 (GMT)
Wiki is a "participatory" application. Complaining months later is not helpful.
--Marty 05:18, 28 February 2007 (GMT)
That's rich. The internal links were added in august. You decided to remove them in September, then I restored them. you then decided to remove them in Februsary. Who is doing what "months later"? Again, if you wish to discuss how things should operate, great otherwise please don't pull rules out of your imagination. More content = good. Cross linking internal content = great. Removing content = bad.
You might want to learn how to use templates before attempting to do so, as well.
jzp 23:40, 28 February 2007 (GMT)
Try and understand the concept of a wiki. It's easy. Put down the alcohol. Think clearly. Enter text that makes sense under topics that are sensisble. Try and keep a focus on North America. Save. See? Now isn't that easy? (cept for putting down the absinthe, of course).
As far as templates go, it is a wiki. Feel free to make yourself useful.
I'm not the one unable to sign entries or act conssistenbtly with agreed-upon policies. I'm not the one making false claims and then when called on them launching personal attacks. You are completely missing the point, as usual. Please stop removing content and internal references. jzp 21:30, 6 March 2007 (GMT)
A glossary is not a replacement for google or some other search engine; having only externaal links is not useful. There are terms and concepts relevant to discussions on the NANOG list and in the NANOG meetings that define our shared language. Unsuprisingly, they have definitions in the wiki - some are ithin pages, some are stand-alone. Feel free to add more and/or correct any believed errors. The content of a page should be discussed on that page, not an index pointing to it.
Your actions are vandalism, plain and simple. To be contrsuctive, please see good editing practices. jzp 20:46, 7 March 2007 (GMT)
