This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2014. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
She's mentioned in the books: Translating Anarchy and Thank You, Anarchy.
Doesn't accusing someone of being a fascist, or supporting slavery, violate the BLP policy? Especially when your only source is a Gawker blog.
This article comes off as a smear/hitpiece, rather than a balanced article about somebody. 72.89.93.231 ( talk) 19:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I invite any editors who have made recent bold edits to this BLP to seek discussion here first. I suggest that we be careful is ascribing literal meanings to blog posts made by a person - as clearly some of her posts are made with a sardonic or sarcastic overview. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose to add the enumerated demands of the now-deleted petition, viz:
from http://www.dailydot.com/politics/occupy-wall-street-organizer-government-petition-google/ . Rationale: to spell out precisely what Tunney was asking for, in her own words (more or less, apart from the explanatory parenthetical added by the Daily Dot).-- greenrd ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, let me try another argument. Either Tunney's political writings are always unserious, in which case it is appropriate to write "Tunney said" in this context; or they are not, in which case I defy you, or anyone, to convincingly and comprehensively demonstrate which are serious and which are not! Poe's Law may be relevant here, especially as Tunney's political writing draws from obscure influences like Moldbug. In general, we simply cannot let our editing decisions be guided by our personal original research on what is and is not "genuine" in what someone says. That way lies endless subjective arguments, and the potential for contentious opinions, or even pretended opinions, to be wielded as a weapon to shape the article in an unduly positive or negative direction. -- greenrd ( talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether allegedly satirical or other allegedly non-serious content by the article subject should be included in the article. ): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Justine Tunney and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
The proposed referendum to abolish the US government, place administration under the tech industry and appoint Eric Schmidt as "CEO of America" is appropriate content for the article. At least two reliable sources and many less reliable sources provide in-depth commentary on that proposed referendum and its author, the subject of the article. DocTree ( ʞlɐʇ· ʇuoɔ) WER 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
My comments are intended to be constructive. I hope you find them helpful. DocTree ( ʞlɐʇ· ʇuoɔ) WER 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add a sentence on Tunney appropriating the OWS Twitter account to express support for the Gamergate movement (something completely unrelated to OWS). Any objections?-- greenrd ( talk) 15:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, you said my content that you removed was "pure promo" - how on earth is it promotional to include the fact that Eric Schmidt is Tunney's ultimate boss? If anything, I think it makes her look bad (like a "corporate ass-kisser"). It is surely relevant information to include - it is one of the things that made the petition more noteworthy. I mean seriously, let's get real here - it made the whole incident funnier. You don't get how funny and cringe-inducing it truly was unless you realise that he is her ultimate boss. So it's surely relevant!-- greenrd ( talk) 06:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not think it is fair that I should be asked to discuss edits first, and others should not be. This puts my edits at a massive disadvantage, which is not conducive to retaining me as an editor. Please, discuss all edits on this talk page first, unless they are to address perceived BLP violations or something (which have to be fixed quickly).-- greenrd ( talk) 06:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, Justine Tunney here. The text "Tunney takes control of the Occupy Wall Street Twitter account" is inaccurate because I always controlled the OccupyWallSt Twitter account. I was the one who registered it and I was involved in running it every single day since July 2011. So this statement is false. Jartine ( talk) 22:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, Justine Tunney here. Thank you for helping to keep this page fair. But is it really necessary to list every single one of silly embarrassing online monikers I used when I was 14, that were dug out of screenshots? Back when I was 14, I was known online exclusively by the name Oogle. The throwaway AIM screen names I used, like "Criminal Oogle" and "mutilated clown", or the completely absurd name "Milton the Communist Bunny Rabbit" which was used in some random copyright section—they aren't really relevant. It makes the page read like an FBI dossiér, rather than a biography. -- Jartine ( talk) 20:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Justine Tunney here. I noticed my bio was recently updated to describe me as a "black hat" and include information about Operation Rosehub (a "white hat" effort I organized at Google which kept thousands of open source projects safe from hackers.) I do not, and have never, identified as a "black hat." The media says the opposite about me. I have been commended by name by organizations like Tech Target and eWeek for my deep commitment to public service, as well as the impact I've had improving global software security. So I find it peculiar that details about my childhood where I posted scripts on a website with a banner while teaching myself Visual Basic, would be granted greater prominence in my biography. I'm 32 years old. Please consider that I was 14 years old when I started experimenting with technology. Are things like these genuinely worthy of public attention? I have a career. Jartine ( talk) 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
My judgement is that "black hat" is an objective descriptor.What an oxymoron.
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/occupy-wall-street-supports-gamergate/
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Justine Tunney. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Who the hell needs it apart from Justine and it friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.231.107 ( talk) 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I suppose mentioning the trans-aspect is ok but ... why is a tumor mentioned? Is that really noteworthy?
IF it is really considered noteworthy then it should go into another sentence, because right now these two sentences together are just sooooo random and don't make a whole lot of sense to me. But I would actually drop the second sentence altogether since I don't see why it would be hugely relevant. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:C080:419D:679D:C9F8 ( talk) 00:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Justine here. The edit that outs me as a trans woman was added a few minutes after a Hacker News user had posted a harassing comment talking about how outraged he felt that I misrepresented myself as a woman when I posted a link to my open source project. So there's little doubt in my mind that "Dingolover6969" is the same person. The comment was posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26271117 but dang (the Hacker News moderator) removed it, so you can email hn@ycombinator.com for confirmation. Also the whole tumor wording is creepy and it upsets me that this article talks about my personal health problems from nine years ago. Jartine ( talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Tunney is a trans womanis backed by multiple sources, though, so I think it should stay. Rublov ( talk) 13:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I actually looked up her Wikipedia page after researching her " αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε" blog post and git repository. The cosmopolitan libc and ape concepts are even referenced as further reading in the Fat binary page. Some other notable blinkelights should also have at least a phrase in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emgv23 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
SectorLisp
-> Linux ports of OpenBSD's pledge()
and unveil()
-> Cosmopolitan
libc -> αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
-> Redbean
-> Blinkenlights
-> etc... Only after being mind-blown by those prodigious engineering accomplishments (a very rare occasion as I've been coding a looong time myself - and almost never call anything higher than "...meh...") did I start to research the person behind it. I was then confused that almost nothing is written about that technology in general, including here on Wikipedia. From what I've been reading thus far it is clear there is a lot of noteworthy controversy outside of the purely technical stuff. I don't have the time to research and form personal opinions on any of that, and would probably second-guess any semblance of an opinion I would form anyway (especially because there seem to be so many contradictory, confusing, and confounding bits of information from otherwise trustworthy sources). Aside from all of that though it feels like a tragedy that those technical achievements are drowned out in the noise. As indication that I am not exaggerating the technical skill involved, look at some of the comments from others at this "Show Hacker News" post
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26271117 (for example "There's engineering. There's academia. But this falls into straight-up wizardry.", "Everything she does has this level of jaw-dropping amazingness. Between her and Fabrice Bellard i don't know many people who consistently get my chin to hit the table.") —
Donkeydonkeydonkeydonkey (
talk) 17:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)how is it that this rando has her own Wikipedia page, the LLaMA stuff is cool but this is not a blog site 189.217.25.218 ( talk) 09:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This article stinks of self-aggrandization, it seems like it was written by Justine herself. I've noticed a pattern of this person wearing out her welcome in numerous online spaces by excessive self-promotion, claiming credit for the work of others, and making offensive/inflammatory remarks. The fact that she has appeared in person in this very talk page to argue for the article's deletion is even more sus, it seems like a reverse psychology sort of thing. Maybe I am leaping to conclusions, but after some brief googling she seems to me like a very brilliant software engineer who also happens to be a very manipulative internet troll and pathological liar, and this article is just her personal vanity article and it only exists because nobody cares enough to delete it. 50.86.77.162 ( talk) 15:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2014. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
She's mentioned in the books: Translating Anarchy and Thank You, Anarchy.
Doesn't accusing someone of being a fascist, or supporting slavery, violate the BLP policy? Especially when your only source is a Gawker blog.
This article comes off as a smear/hitpiece, rather than a balanced article about somebody. 72.89.93.231 ( talk) 19:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I invite any editors who have made recent bold edits to this BLP to seek discussion here first. I suggest that we be careful is ascribing literal meanings to blog posts made by a person - as clearly some of her posts are made with a sardonic or sarcastic overview. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose to add the enumerated demands of the now-deleted petition, viz:
from http://www.dailydot.com/politics/occupy-wall-street-organizer-government-petition-google/ . Rationale: to spell out precisely what Tunney was asking for, in her own words (more or less, apart from the explanatory parenthetical added by the Daily Dot).-- greenrd ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, let me try another argument. Either Tunney's political writings are always unserious, in which case it is appropriate to write "Tunney said" in this context; or they are not, in which case I defy you, or anyone, to convincingly and comprehensively demonstrate which are serious and which are not! Poe's Law may be relevant here, especially as Tunney's political writing draws from obscure influences like Moldbug. In general, we simply cannot let our editing decisions be guided by our personal original research on what is and is not "genuine" in what someone says. That way lies endless subjective arguments, and the potential for contentious opinions, or even pretended opinions, to be wielded as a weapon to shape the article in an unduly positive or negative direction. -- greenrd ( talk) 22:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether allegedly satirical or other allegedly non-serious content by the article subject should be included in the article. ): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Justine Tunney and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
The proposed referendum to abolish the US government, place administration under the tech industry and appoint Eric Schmidt as "CEO of America" is appropriate content for the article. At least two reliable sources and many less reliable sources provide in-depth commentary on that proposed referendum and its author, the subject of the article. DocTree ( ʞlɐʇ· ʇuoɔ) WER 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC) |
My comments are intended to be constructive. I hope you find them helpful. DocTree ( ʞlɐʇ· ʇuoɔ) WER 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add a sentence on Tunney appropriating the OWS Twitter account to express support for the Gamergate movement (something completely unrelated to OWS). Any objections?-- greenrd ( talk) 15:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, you said my content that you removed was "pure promo" - how on earth is it promotional to include the fact that Eric Schmidt is Tunney's ultimate boss? If anything, I think it makes her look bad (like a "corporate ass-kisser"). It is surely relevant information to include - it is one of the things that made the petition more noteworthy. I mean seriously, let's get real here - it made the whole incident funnier. You don't get how funny and cringe-inducing it truly was unless you realise that he is her ultimate boss. So it's surely relevant!-- greenrd ( talk) 06:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not think it is fair that I should be asked to discuss edits first, and others should not be. This puts my edits at a massive disadvantage, which is not conducive to retaining me as an editor. Please, discuss all edits on this talk page first, unless they are to address perceived BLP violations or something (which have to be fixed quickly).-- greenrd ( talk) 06:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, Justine Tunney here. The text "Tunney takes control of the Occupy Wall Street Twitter account" is inaccurate because I always controlled the OccupyWallSt Twitter account. I was the one who registered it and I was involved in running it every single day since July 2011. So this statement is false. Jartine ( talk) 22:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, Justine Tunney here. Thank you for helping to keep this page fair. But is it really necessary to list every single one of silly embarrassing online monikers I used when I was 14, that were dug out of screenshots? Back when I was 14, I was known online exclusively by the name Oogle. The throwaway AIM screen names I used, like "Criminal Oogle" and "mutilated clown", or the completely absurd name "Milton the Communist Bunny Rabbit" which was used in some random copyright section—they aren't really relevant. It makes the page read like an FBI dossiér, rather than a biography. -- Jartine ( talk) 20:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Justine Tunney here. I noticed my bio was recently updated to describe me as a "black hat" and include information about Operation Rosehub (a "white hat" effort I organized at Google which kept thousands of open source projects safe from hackers.) I do not, and have never, identified as a "black hat." The media says the opposite about me. I have been commended by name by organizations like Tech Target and eWeek for my deep commitment to public service, as well as the impact I've had improving global software security. So I find it peculiar that details about my childhood where I posted scripts on a website with a banner while teaching myself Visual Basic, would be granted greater prominence in my biography. I'm 32 years old. Please consider that I was 14 years old when I started experimenting with technology. Are things like these genuinely worthy of public attention? I have a career. Jartine ( talk) 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
My judgement is that "black hat" is an objective descriptor.What an oxymoron.
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/occupy-wall-street-supports-gamergate/
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Justine Tunney. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Who the hell needs it apart from Justine and it friends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.231.107 ( talk) 08:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I suppose mentioning the trans-aspect is ok but ... why is a tumor mentioned? Is that really noteworthy?
IF it is really considered noteworthy then it should go into another sentence, because right now these two sentences together are just sooooo random and don't make a whole lot of sense to me. But I would actually drop the second sentence altogether since I don't see why it would be hugely relevant. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:C080:419D:679D:C9F8 ( talk) 00:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Justine here. The edit that outs me as a trans woman was added a few minutes after a Hacker News user had posted a harassing comment talking about how outraged he felt that I misrepresented myself as a woman when I posted a link to my open source project. So there's little doubt in my mind that "Dingolover6969" is the same person. The comment was posted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26271117 but dang (the Hacker News moderator) removed it, so you can email hn@ycombinator.com for confirmation. Also the whole tumor wording is creepy and it upsets me that this article talks about my personal health problems from nine years ago. Jartine ( talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Tunney is a trans womanis backed by multiple sources, though, so I think it should stay. Rublov ( talk) 13:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I actually looked up her Wikipedia page after researching her " αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε" blog post and git repository. The cosmopolitan libc and ape concepts are even referenced as further reading in the Fat binary page. Some other notable blinkelights should also have at least a phrase in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emgv23 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
SectorLisp
-> Linux ports of OpenBSD's pledge()
and unveil()
-> Cosmopolitan
libc -> αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε
-> Redbean
-> Blinkenlights
-> etc... Only after being mind-blown by those prodigious engineering accomplishments (a very rare occasion as I've been coding a looong time myself - and almost never call anything higher than "...meh...") did I start to research the person behind it. I was then confused that almost nothing is written about that technology in general, including here on Wikipedia. From what I've been reading thus far it is clear there is a lot of noteworthy controversy outside of the purely technical stuff. I don't have the time to research and form personal opinions on any of that, and would probably second-guess any semblance of an opinion I would form anyway (especially because there seem to be so many contradictory, confusing, and confounding bits of information from otherwise trustworthy sources). Aside from all of that though it feels like a tragedy that those technical achievements are drowned out in the noise. As indication that I am not exaggerating the technical skill involved, look at some of the comments from others at this "Show Hacker News" post
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26271117 (for example "There's engineering. There's academia. But this falls into straight-up wizardry.", "Everything she does has this level of jaw-dropping amazingness. Between her and Fabrice Bellard i don't know many people who consistently get my chin to hit the table.") —
Donkeydonkeydonkeydonkey (
talk) 17:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)how is it that this rando has her own Wikipedia page, the LLaMA stuff is cool but this is not a blog site 189.217.25.218 ( talk) 09:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
This article stinks of self-aggrandization, it seems like it was written by Justine herself. I've noticed a pattern of this person wearing out her welcome in numerous online spaces by excessive self-promotion, claiming credit for the work of others, and making offensive/inflammatory remarks. The fact that she has appeared in person in this very talk page to argue for the article's deletion is even more sus, it seems like a reverse psychology sort of thing. Maybe I am leaping to conclusions, but after some brief googling she seems to me like a very brilliant software engineer who also happens to be a very manipulative internet troll and pathological liar, and this article is just her personal vanity article and it only exists because nobody cares enough to delete it. 50.86.77.162 ( talk) 15:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)