![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I would like to request that this page be reverted back to a point where it listed products in specific sections just like it was in Old revision of BSAFE. The way the page has been recently re-worked does not do due justice to this notably historical product, which is still in use and being developed today.
Furthermore, moving all products into a section called Varieties is inaccurate. There are varieties of apples like Spartans and Empires, and varieties of candies like licorice and lolliepops. Those are example where the word variety can be used. In this case, the different bullet points placed under the Varieties section are in fact different Products. Just like the McAfee lists multiple products, here the BSAFE product line is composed of multiple products. Old revision of BSAFE was making this clear distinction while the current revision is not.
And lastly, I would request that this page also has the same treatment as other WP pages, which is to place the controversies last, and at the top of the page and above the fold. The page about McAfee is a good example of unfairness to the page about BSAFE. Why would the McAfee page has Controversies last, while the current revision of BSAFE has its controversy first? Same goes with OpenSSL: the page does not list notable vulnerabilities first and above the fold. The page describes the offering first then move on to vulnerabilities.
I am hereby requesting the same fairness in this article, and that this page be reviewed by an independent account different from those who have been watching my edits lately.
Please also note that I am attempting to follow the WP:COIREQ process. No need to point me to it, but if there is something wrong with this request I will accept any guidance.
Regards - Security in mind ( talk) 16:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox_software}}
, that were previously present, which helps WP users know which version is the {{
LSR}}
? Can BSAFE get the same treatment of other crypto toolkits like
Bouncy Castle,
Botan,
OpenSSL and many others? Why were those infoxboxes removed for BSAFE products? Isn't it part of the formatting guidelines and good practices to have infoxbox_software? Also, BSAFE is not a company, but a product suite, just like
Microsoft Office. The MS Office page lists products and a small description about those products. I wish that the same rules applies for all product suites please. Also I find this very strange that when I created the Edit Request WP system told me there were many, many articles to review first. How come this ER got reviewed and declined so fast? May I be pointed to the the WP guideline that says controversies should be listed first? -
Security in mind (
talk)
17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
{{
further}}
from topics of SSL-J and Micro Edition Suite to
Comparison of TLS implementations{{
further}}
from topics of Crypto-J, Micro Edition Suite and Crypto-C Micro Edition to
Comparison of cryptography librariesStable release | 6.2.4
/ February 21, 2018 |
---|---|
Written in | Java |
Stable release | 4.1.5 (December 17, 2020[1]) [±] |
---|---|
Written in | C, assembly |
Stable release | 7.0 (September 7, 2022[2]) [±] 6.3 (April 4, 2023 [3]) [±] |
---|---|
Written in | Java |
Stable release | 4.6.2 (May 2, 2023[4])
[±] Micro Edition Suite 5.0.2.1 (September 18, 2023 [5]) [±] |
---|---|
Written in | C, assembly |
Final release | 2.8.9
/ March 13, 2014 |
---|---|
Written in | C, assembly |
Operating system | Linux and Microsoft Windows |
Stable release | 6.6 (July 2, 2024[6])
[±] SSL-J 7.2.1 (July 2, 2024 [7]) [±] |
---|---|
Written in | Java |
Regards - Security in mind ( talk) 17:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
further}}
improves awareness and cross-linking multiple articles cross WP, which is a strength. The more you cross-link, the easier it will be for readers to jump from topics to topics. 3) Infobox_software: all other well-maintained WP pages about computer software and
Software development kit have an infobox. Why would this page be treated any differently? 4) Moving Products to the top, while I understand that given my apparent COI this may look as if I am trying to push the controversy further down the page, the fact is there is more to say about BSAFE than just this part in its long history, and it looks like
MrOllie would prefer that the article not be written with a
WP:NPOV by focusing on the negative, past history of this product suite. -
Security in mind (
talk)
22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
I would like to request that this page be reverted back to a point where it listed products in specific sections just like it was in Old revision of BSAFE. The way the page has been recently re-worked does not do due justice to this notably historical product, which is still in use and being developed today.
Furthermore, moving all products into a section called Varieties is inaccurate. There are varieties of apples like Spartans and Empires, and varieties of candies like licorice and lolliepops. Those are example where the word variety can be used. In this case, the different bullet points placed under the Varieties section are in fact different Products. Just like the McAfee lists multiple products, here the BSAFE product line is composed of multiple products. Old revision of BSAFE was making this clear distinction while the current revision is not.
And lastly, I would request that this page also has the same treatment as other WP pages, which is to place the controversies last, and at the top of the page and above the fold. The page about McAfee is a good example of unfairness to the page about BSAFE. Why would the McAfee page has Controversies last, while the current revision of BSAFE has its controversy first? Same goes with OpenSSL: the page does not list notable vulnerabilities first and above the fold. The page describes the offering first then move on to vulnerabilities.
I am hereby requesting the same fairness in this article, and that this page be reviewed by an independent account different from those who have been watching my edits lately.
Please also note that I am attempting to follow the WP:COIREQ process. No need to point me to it, but if there is something wrong with this request I will accept any guidance.
Regards - Security in mind ( talk) 16:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox_software}}
, that were previously present, which helps WP users know which version is the {{
LSR}}
? Can BSAFE get the same treatment of other crypto toolkits like
Bouncy Castle,
Botan,
OpenSSL and many others? Why were those infoxboxes removed for BSAFE products? Isn't it part of the formatting guidelines and good practices to have infoxbox_software? Also, BSAFE is not a company, but a product suite, just like
Microsoft Office. The MS Office page lists products and a small description about those products. I wish that the same rules applies for all product suites please. Also I find this very strange that when I created the Edit Request WP system told me there were many, many articles to review first. How come this ER got reviewed and declined so fast? May I be pointed to the the WP guideline that says controversies should be listed first? -
Security in mind (
talk)
17:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
{{
further}}
from topics of SSL-J and Micro Edition Suite to
Comparison of TLS implementations{{
further}}
from topics of Crypto-J, Micro Edition Suite and Crypto-C Micro Edition to
Comparison of cryptography librariesStable release | 6.2.4
/ February 21, 2018 |
---|---|
Written in | Java |
Stable release | 4.1.5 (December 17, 2020[1]) [±] |
---|---|
Written in | C, assembly |
Stable release | 7.0 (September 7, 2022[2]) [±] 6.3 (April 4, 2023 [3]) [±] |
---|---|
Written in | Java |
Stable release | 4.6.2 (May 2, 2023[4])
[±] Micro Edition Suite 5.0.2.1 (September 18, 2023 [5]) [±] |
---|---|
Written in | C, assembly |
Final release | 2.8.9
/ March 13, 2014 |
---|---|
Written in | C, assembly |
Operating system | Linux and Microsoft Windows |
Stable release | 6.6 (July 2, 2024[6])
[±] SSL-J 7.2.1 (July 2, 2024 [7]) [±] |
---|---|
Written in | Java |
Regards - Security in mind ( talk) 17:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
further}}
improves awareness and cross-linking multiple articles cross WP, which is a strength. The more you cross-link, the easier it will be for readers to jump from topics to topics. 3) Infobox_software: all other well-maintained WP pages about computer software and
Software development kit have an infobox. Why would this page be treated any differently? 4) Moving Products to the top, while I understand that given my apparent COI this may look as if I am trying to push the controversy further down the page, the fact is there is more to say about BSAFE than just this part in its long history, and it looks like
MrOllie would prefer that the article not be written with a
WP:NPOV by focusing on the negative, past history of this product suite. -
Security in mind (
talk)
22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)