-- --- tqbf 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. You are rude and immature.
I have also browsed your contributions page, and am appalled by your horrible behavior and obvious e-penis enhancing tactics. Look, we all can see that you're frustrated with the real world. Just don't take it out on wikipedia, ok?
Tqbf, I understand that you're still somewhat new on Wikipedia, so I thought I'd drop you a friendly note about some of the rules of engagement here, which are different than other locations where you may have participated, such as Usenet or SlashDot. One of the core policies on Wikipedia is civility. Another is no personal attacks. Some of your recent comments towards me could possibly be considered as uncivil, [1] Could I therefore please encourage you to try and adopt a better standard of behavior? Thanks, -- El on ka 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
tqbf 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Tqbf, I've been following you, and as an impartial observer, I have to say, you must be a troll. An intelligent troll, and one that uses Wikipedia provisions as weapons, but a troll nonetheless. Just wanted to say I see through you, as thousands of others have, and I want everyone who happens to land on your page know: don't take this man seriously. He is purposefully combative, and has a superiority complex. He is very opinionated and diligent in his edits, but ultimately, he isn't noteworthy, and his opinion should not be taken into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 ( talk) 22:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
To state that MaraDNS has memory corruption and remote code vulnerabilities is against the policies in WP:VERIFY. This certainly is news to me, and I'm the developer and maintainer of the program. If you are going to make those kinds of accusations, you better be able to back them up. Samboy 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Heya. I don't think the APE issue should be listed under criticism, as Unsanity has already taken responsibility for the problem, and it really doesn't have to do with Leopard. It could be mentioned in Compatibility, but in the long run is it really notable enough to be mentioned? Will it be on anyone's radar a month from now? I feel like it belongs on the APE page, where I believe someone mentioned it already is. As far as the other criticism, the Java thing doesn't belong at this point since it's not from a reliable source. The rest of it is sourced and should belong (although that little karmic Gruber comment, while amusing, isn't notable IMO either). V-train 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot
12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't cite article/blog posts/whatever that are simply linking to another article and repeating content from there. And please don't cite multiple sources to back up the same point. Pick a good solid source and cite it. Fifteen sources all saying basically the same thing isn't useful. AlistairMcMillan 20:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I think you are right about Seatbelt? Yes, more than likely.
Do I think you are right to cite yourself as a source on Wikipedia? Nope. Not for a second.
I have a great deal of respect for your writing on your blog (having followed a link from John Gruber I think) and have your blog subscribed so I can follow your writing. But you aren't doing yourself any favours by butting heads with one of our more respected long term editors about uncontroversial Wikipedia policies. Don't get me wrong, I've butted heads with him in the past on more than one occasion, but please trust me, on this issue he is right. IMHO of course. AlistairMcMillan 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions on how to write a wiki article! Reading over it, I see that most of my contributors quoted the group's about page, which is not exactly encyclopedic material.
I was just curious: As I'm looking over the article on ACiD, I notice it is pretty self referential. Is it allowed to stand purely because it has been in place for a long time, or because the article just doesn't make many claims about large scale notability? When you said certain types of words trigger sensors, do you mean that the way I wrote the article triggered some sort of AI that flagged it as questionable?
A very short article could be written on Evoke by a third party (who could perhaps obtain info from me) - similar in length to the ACiD article and then they could be integrated into a digital art group article.
Also, what did you mean by "stereo instructions" ?
Thanks for the help! BTW Why isn't Bruce Schneier on your list of cryptography experts?
-- RevenantPrime 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
{{fact}}
, inline. Be careful, because COI applies to you in the ACiD article as well.--- tqbf 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tqbf. Your edit here makes it sound as if Benjiboi and I have had an ongoing personal dispute; I assure you it's not the case. My first comment wasn't even directed toward him. He responded by calling into question the basis for my nomination of the article; I responded to that questioning appropriately, I think, as it's important that editors understand that the nomination was not made out of malice to any group or community. Powers T 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I can understand wanting better references and citations in the IPv4 address exhaustion article, I agree it needs to be cleaned up. However, if you don't recognize what the HD ratio is, that might indicate that you may not know enough about the subject to judge what is relevant. All it took for me to find a reference was to google "iana hd ratio" and found the RFC I was remembering. Please at least try to find references and such before deleting content. If you can't find references, go ahead and flag them with the "fact" tag. Wrs1864 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I responded to your query on my talk page. :) - Philippe | Talk 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I do care, really, and I do my best to improve the quality of many hacking and phreaking related articles. I think one of the essential problems with hacking/phreaking is that hackers and phreaks aren't really *interested* in news coverage. It doesn't do anything for anyone that actually hacks computers, as in the illegal B&E sense of hacking. Phreaking is more greyarea, but generally phone phreaks aren't interested in much more than well, playing with the phones. But I still do my best to get stuff included here, because I figure one day someone might want to know something about the community as it existed in the past. One day all these things that make up the hacker community now will be gone, lost to internet decay. Hopefully wikipedia can archive some of it. Anyways, whatever. Thanks for the comments.-- Othtim ( talk) 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're an admin, right? What's the proper response to Talk:Gary_Miliefsky? Thanks in advance. --- tqbf 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Igor Berger ( talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Use Google to traslate from Russian to Englis. ZLOBHacker Group Igor Berger ( talk) 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I will try to get more information on Zlob and maybe we can do Zlob page. I am Russian so maybe that will give me an upper hand on the group. Zlob trojan is a real problem and a project that I run PHSDLcataloging Zlob domains. [ Project Honeypot Spam Domains Hot List] this is a list that containes mostly Zlob Domains that redirect to ActiveX MalWare codec Trojan I have verified alomst 1,500 Zlob Domains this year. Igor Berger ( talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise, I'd prefer to spend the time actually creating content for Wikipedia but given the way Wikipedia is going these days... the massive onslaught of spammers... c'est la vie.
I want to remove spam from these types of articles. The easiest way to establish what is spam and what isn't, is to insist that the notability of the software in question is established. We could establish the notability of ten/twenty/thirty pieces of software inside the comparison article itself, but that would end up being a longer section than the comparison tables themselves. So the easiest way is to have articles on each piece of software with notability established within the article.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this well, but it is basically the way things work across a bunch of articles on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure there is probably an article in the Wikipedia namespace that explains this better, but I have trouble locating anything past the obvious (WP:V, WP:RS, etc) ones. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In Randal L. Schwartz, you've declared a WP:POV error. Please see my comments in the talk page there. -- Randal L. Schwartz ( talk) 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I noted you were pretty charitable about keeping that article despite longstanding issues around citation, relevancy, accuracy, and most damning the complete and utter plagiarism of the bio info..... Is wikipedia about volume or quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.11 ( talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just undid your last edit (which undid the previous edit). Your latest edit removed the {{dubious}} tag from the exhaustion date section, which as you previously stated has not been resolved yet. I believe you intended it to be there, and probably just got mixed up with all the previous edits. AWeenieMan ( talk) 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
emailed you. DGG ( talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors.
--
Virgil Vaduva (
talk)
01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reading that talkpage! I would actually love to get some more editors participating in that discussion, or responding to the RfC there, or commenting on my rewrite, so if you'd like to join in, please feel free. You may also wish to read the talkpage archives (after another drink, of course <grin>). For a quickref on the topic, check User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. I've also got a list of sources at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, and PHG has his own list at User:PHG/Alliance. And if you have any questions, let me know! :) -- El on ka 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refactor your comment. cygnis insignis 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
would assume that you quoting me. That is what those little marks " mean. Drop the combative attitude, it is not acceptable. I will remove it. cygnis insignis 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Elonka may be a lot of frustrating things, but not even Danny called her "stupid".
Admin User:DGG is taking a look at the WP:COI issues right now. But in general, yes I would support a AfD of this article regardless of the COI outcomes. Mbisanz ( talk) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me about the commercial war dialer you created. Simsong ( talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I would point you to the page that was questioned, but I don't have the heart, strength, or energy to go through the disputes that we went through on the particular page. It has, suffice it to say, stuck with me that TVGuide and TVGuide Canada were not reliable sources. I hope you understand. I'm trying to play peacemaker and not get into any disputes over what was a simple question yesterday. IrishLass ( talk) 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please try and format comments and edit summaries to not be offensive and to be so everyone can read what is written by who. You uncivil behavior should be reported. IrishLass ( talk) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I only knew to do the research because Holy Cross was in my high school conference when I went to high school at Marist ... not far from Quigley. Peace! LonelyBeacon ( talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Just read the "HOWTO exploit Wikipedia and get away with it" post on your blog. Very amusing.
I see one problem with your howto though.
If they do make clear on their userpage who they are, and their vanity/advertising article is nominated for deletion, a hell of a lot of people will automatically vote delete, no matter how well cited/notable the subject is. I would guess for instance that the MaraDNS article would almost certainly get deleted if it was ever nominated. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 02:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your comments and would encourage you to condense that material further. I believe I may be running up against 3RR so I cannot do so myself. However, I do not believe that material should be eliminated entirely.-- Samiharris ( talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you placed a {{
notability}} tag on this article questioning his notability. As the creator of the article and main (sole?) contributor, I would've appreciated a note on my talk page regarding this. Anyway, I believe his notability has already been asserted when the article was considered for speedy deletion - check the
talk page.
Also, according to your note in the talk page, you are questioning the statement "notable forensics expert". If that's what you think that needs substantiation, I think that a {{
fact}} tag would be more appropriate.
In any case, I hope I addressed the concern and if not, please drop me a note on my
talk page. Thanks! --
Kimon
talk
18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think that you are gittin’ too personally involved here. Maybe you should relax, and let GOD do his job?-- Duchamps comb ( talk) 06:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's
no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to
blocks for disruption. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--
Ducha
mps_
comb
This is a reminder
don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point and
no personal attacks if
you continue to edit and violate the
civility and
disruptively violations of the
WP:POINT guideline and for continuing to
harass
neutral editors you risk being
blocked.--
Ducha
mps_
comb
Don't know if you've seen it, but WP:ANI#user: tqbf. I'm curious to see where this goes... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a notice of
harassment and if you contact me again or leave another comment on my talk page you risk being
blocked.--
Ducha
mps_
comb
MFA
17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to barely scrape by on notability, so I've withdrawn the nomination. It's still iffy, though. Corvus cornix talk 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I was planning on starting with these two and going from there. While there is no WP:Notability (Law), based on my reading of WP:N, I am assuming that any bill that fails to generate any significant discussion in the governing body in which it was proposed, or in the mainstream media, fails WP:N. Burzmali ( talk) 18:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
afd refers to entire articles for deletion, not sections of articles. Your link doesn't work.-- Goon Noot ( talk) 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have plans to improve application / software security sub-set of the security domain?
I can review, but I don't want to make all the fixes -- at least from a conceptual integrity standpoint)
The following pages have several isues from an application security perspective: information Security, information assurance, computer security, security engineering, application security * made some minimal improvements
It looks like they were mostly worked on either from an editorial perspective or by network and infrastructure security experience, without contributions from application security people. I'm glad people contributed, but it would be good to see the information improved to at least catch up with what's out in the public domain, if not improve.
The following collection is potentially the most cited and most reused in the application security space, particularly for Line of Business and Enterprise applications for both Java and Microsoft platforms:
You can check the citations in google sholar. The work is *borrowed* more than it's cited though and it tends not to get cited properly since there's printed books, PDF downloads and free HTML, and some of the work goes by different names (for example, "threats and countermeasures" vs. "improving web application security" ... etc.)
The work was used in competitive studies and assessments, for example OpenHack and some IBM vs. Microsoft studies.
While the core team behind the work has varied, J.D. Meyer has lead the teams over the years so there's consistency across the work. Some of the work is a little dated since it began in 2001, but it's mostly principles and patterns so it's been pretty stable over time. It looks like the full index is http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998408.aspx.
The collection of work potentially has the largest consolidated body of free content backed by industry experts and has one of the largest community contribution lists for focused bodies of work. Some of the contributors cross-pollinated the information to OWASP and leveraged the information models from the patterns & practices.
Here's an example of the contributors and reviewers list from the patterns & practices site:
I suggest ...
The interplay at the even higher-level would be network, host, and application, where the host contains the runtime for the app framework (such as .NET) and the platform (such as Windows) This addresses the issue most software devs face -- the attacks that fall through the cracks between the network, host and app. They protect one level, but miss another. It might be worth pointing out defense in depth (not the over-used mantra, but the actual layers and the approach of people, process, technology ... and showing how the tech piece is where the net,app, host, data ... fit) and how operational policies affect the people, process, tech.
... I realize I might not have been clear -- the way to address web vs. kernel ... etc. is to frame by the archetype (apps vs. platforms vs. runtimes) -- I agree, otherwise yeah, the Web overshadows (well, it is sort of pervasive these days)
I would be glad to review this with you. You said:
“ | 'Delete' --- of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is. Instead of editing Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 --- which would require that RP supporters remove such important content as "how many World of Warcraft users have named their characters after Ron Paul" and "which community college professors have endorsed Ron Paul" and "where can the enlightened Wikipedia reader go to find the discussion forum for the Hotties-4-Ron-Paul calendar" --- RP content has instead metastasized into many other articles across the WP. Here's another interesting metric: we are now 5 days in to 2008, and the "2008 developments" article has eighteen paragraphs. This is the dictdef of undue weight, which is why these articles consistently die in AfD. --- | ” |
Let's examine the part that seems like valid reasoning:
It seems that you are saying we need fewer articles for this content... hence a merge argument is assumed. I recognize that you also have concerns about the quality of the content, but that is never an issue for AFD, so it gets ignored. Pre-merge or Post-merge editing can easily fix those concerns. I took your statement on face value that you were concerned about the content having "metastasized into many other articles". Merging fixes that perceived problem. JERRY talk contribs 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
He endorsed Paul, too. Kind of weird, but being contrary and contradictory is sort of his thing, I suppose.-- Newsroom hierarchies ( talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you do get a bit carried away at times, and "untrustworthy" (while not slanderous) was over the line. As a Quaker, naturally I advise calm, deliberation and moderate language. Keep all edits about the subject matter, not about the two of you. Try to approach some of his fellow partisans who are less angry about the whole thing (Bulten, for example, is sometimes approachable). Nonetheless, if the charges keep combing from one side, you must respond. At some point, you may need to request formal mediation. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your comment in Talk:Ron Paul#Newsletters. As the second paragraph of your comment is not about the protected edit request discussed in the thread, perhaps it could be split into a new section together with my reply? Please feel free to go ahead and make the change before other editors add to the thread. Terjen ( talk) 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, your opinion on and edits to Tom Vogt are being questioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Vogt (2nd nomination). You might want to drop by and comment. Jfire ( talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you (and others?) took parts of the list and made them into paragraphs. Looks weird, inconsistent, and harder to read, don't you think? Can't think of sufficient justification. Korky Day ( talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I've removed a section on a talk page in which you previously edited per WP:BLP ( diff) — hope that's OK! -- Lea ( talk) 02:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Tom, I've done a large amount of editing on the article and have gotten to the point where I need a couple of people that have contributed to look-over it's remake. I have cleared a couple of the obvious flags out already, but I would like for someone to look it over for POV other than myself. Thanks for your help in advance. Konrad Kgrr ( talk) 16:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I must have made a mistake, I had no intention to remove the tag in _why's biography (btw, I had in fact reverted the page to a former state...) Sorry... And thanks for the civility in notifying me of my blunder. Zorbid ( talk) 15:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Banished Words List, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banished Words List. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — Emufarmers( T/ C) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the Wikipedia article about Melih Abdulhayoglu, the CEO of Comodo.
I would value your opinions and edits of the article. This time I have tried extra-hard to keep the tone neutral. I would really appreciate your suggestions.
I feel that Melih is notable, not only for his patents, but also for his philanthropy. Because of Melih's business model, Comodo ensures that every Internet user has access to free firewall, antivirus and other security software. Comodo security software is now installed on 10 million computers worldwide. I don't know how to explain this on Melih's bio without sounding like puffery, but I wanted you to know about it.
Thanks for your help. Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 22:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Shon Harris. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shon Harris. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 09:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
-- --- tqbf 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. You are rude and immature.
I have also browsed your contributions page, and am appalled by your horrible behavior and obvious e-penis enhancing tactics. Look, we all can see that you're frustrated with the real world. Just don't take it out on wikipedia, ok?
Tqbf, I understand that you're still somewhat new on Wikipedia, so I thought I'd drop you a friendly note about some of the rules of engagement here, which are different than other locations where you may have participated, such as Usenet or SlashDot. One of the core policies on Wikipedia is civility. Another is no personal attacks. Some of your recent comments towards me could possibly be considered as uncivil, [1] Could I therefore please encourage you to try and adopt a better standard of behavior? Thanks, -- El on ka 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
tqbf 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Tqbf, I've been following you, and as an impartial observer, I have to say, you must be a troll. An intelligent troll, and one that uses Wikipedia provisions as weapons, but a troll nonetheless. Just wanted to say I see through you, as thousands of others have, and I want everyone who happens to land on your page know: don't take this man seriously. He is purposefully combative, and has a superiority complex. He is very opinionated and diligent in his edits, but ultimately, he isn't noteworthy, and his opinion should not be taken into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 ( talk) 22:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
To state that MaraDNS has memory corruption and remote code vulnerabilities is against the policies in WP:VERIFY. This certainly is news to me, and I'm the developer and maintainer of the program. If you are going to make those kinds of accusations, you better be able to back them up. Samboy 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Heya. I don't think the APE issue should be listed under criticism, as Unsanity has already taken responsibility for the problem, and it really doesn't have to do with Leopard. It could be mentioned in Compatibility, but in the long run is it really notable enough to be mentioned? Will it be on anyone's radar a month from now? I feel like it belongs on the APE page, where I believe someone mentioned it already is. As far as the other criticism, the Java thing doesn't belong at this point since it's not from a reliable source. The rest of it is sourced and should belong (although that little karmic Gruber comment, while amusing, isn't notable IMO either). V-train 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --
SineBot
12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't cite article/blog posts/whatever that are simply linking to another article and repeating content from there. And please don't cite multiple sources to back up the same point. Pick a good solid source and cite it. Fifteen sources all saying basically the same thing isn't useful. AlistairMcMillan 20:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I think you are right about Seatbelt? Yes, more than likely.
Do I think you are right to cite yourself as a source on Wikipedia? Nope. Not for a second.
I have a great deal of respect for your writing on your blog (having followed a link from John Gruber I think) and have your blog subscribed so I can follow your writing. But you aren't doing yourself any favours by butting heads with one of our more respected long term editors about uncontroversial Wikipedia policies. Don't get me wrong, I've butted heads with him in the past on more than one occasion, but please trust me, on this issue he is right. IMHO of course. AlistairMcMillan 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions on how to write a wiki article! Reading over it, I see that most of my contributors quoted the group's about page, which is not exactly encyclopedic material.
I was just curious: As I'm looking over the article on ACiD, I notice it is pretty self referential. Is it allowed to stand purely because it has been in place for a long time, or because the article just doesn't make many claims about large scale notability? When you said certain types of words trigger sensors, do you mean that the way I wrote the article triggered some sort of AI that flagged it as questionable?
A very short article could be written on Evoke by a third party (who could perhaps obtain info from me) - similar in length to the ACiD article and then they could be integrated into a digital art group article.
Also, what did you mean by "stereo instructions" ?
Thanks for the help! BTW Why isn't Bruce Schneier on your list of cryptography experts?
-- RevenantPrime 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
{{fact}}
, inline. Be careful, because COI applies to you in the ACiD article as well.--- tqbf 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tqbf. Your edit here makes it sound as if Benjiboi and I have had an ongoing personal dispute; I assure you it's not the case. My first comment wasn't even directed toward him. He responded by calling into question the basis for my nomination of the article; I responded to that questioning appropriately, I think, as it's important that editors understand that the nomination was not made out of malice to any group or community. Powers T 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I can understand wanting better references and citations in the IPv4 address exhaustion article, I agree it needs to be cleaned up. However, if you don't recognize what the HD ratio is, that might indicate that you may not know enough about the subject to judge what is relevant. All it took for me to find a reference was to google "iana hd ratio" and found the RFC I was remembering. Please at least try to find references and such before deleting content. If you can't find references, go ahead and flag them with the "fact" tag. Wrs1864 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I responded to your query on my talk page. :) - Philippe | Talk 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I do care, really, and I do my best to improve the quality of many hacking and phreaking related articles. I think one of the essential problems with hacking/phreaking is that hackers and phreaks aren't really *interested* in news coverage. It doesn't do anything for anyone that actually hacks computers, as in the illegal B&E sense of hacking. Phreaking is more greyarea, but generally phone phreaks aren't interested in much more than well, playing with the phones. But I still do my best to get stuff included here, because I figure one day someone might want to know something about the community as it existed in the past. One day all these things that make up the hacker community now will be gone, lost to internet decay. Hopefully wikipedia can archive some of it. Anyways, whatever. Thanks for the comments.-- Othtim ( talk) 03:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're an admin, right? What's the proper response to Talk:Gary_Miliefsky? Thanks in advance. --- tqbf 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Igor Berger ( talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Use Google to traslate from Russian to Englis. ZLOBHacker Group Igor Berger ( talk) 19:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I will try to get more information on Zlob and maybe we can do Zlob page. I am Russian so maybe that will give me an upper hand on the group. Zlob trojan is a real problem and a project that I run PHSDLcataloging Zlob domains. [ Project Honeypot Spam Domains Hot List] this is a list that containes mostly Zlob Domains that redirect to ActiveX MalWare codec Trojan I have verified alomst 1,500 Zlob Domains this year. Igor Berger ( talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No need to apologise, I'd prefer to spend the time actually creating content for Wikipedia but given the way Wikipedia is going these days... the massive onslaught of spammers... c'est la vie.
I want to remove spam from these types of articles. The easiest way to establish what is spam and what isn't, is to insist that the notability of the software in question is established. We could establish the notability of ten/twenty/thirty pieces of software inside the comparison article itself, but that would end up being a longer section than the comparison tables themselves. So the easiest way is to have articles on each piece of software with notability established within the article.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this well, but it is basically the way things work across a bunch of articles on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure there is probably an article in the Wikipedia namespace that explains this better, but I have trouble locating anything past the obvious (WP:V, WP:RS, etc) ones. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
In Randal L. Schwartz, you've declared a WP:POV error. Please see my comments in the talk page there. -- Randal L. Schwartz ( talk) 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I noted you were pretty charitable about keeping that article despite longstanding issues around citation, relevancy, accuracy, and most damning the complete and utter plagiarism of the bio info..... Is wikipedia about volume or quality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.11 ( talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just undid your last edit (which undid the previous edit). Your latest edit removed the {{dubious}} tag from the exhaustion date section, which as you previously stated has not been resolved yet. I believe you intended it to be there, and probably just got mixed up with all the previous edits. AWeenieMan ( talk) 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
emailed you. DGG ( talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors.
--
Virgil Vaduva (
talk)
01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reading that talkpage! I would actually love to get some more editors participating in that discussion, or responding to the RfC there, or commenting on my rewrite, so if you'd like to join in, please feel free. You may also wish to read the talkpage archives (after another drink, of course <grin>). For a quickref on the topic, check User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. I've also got a list of sources at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, and PHG has his own list at User:PHG/Alliance. And if you have any questions, let me know! :) -- El on ka 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refactor your comment. cygnis insignis 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
would assume that you quoting me. That is what those little marks " mean. Drop the combative attitude, it is not acceptable. I will remove it. cygnis insignis 01:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Elonka may be a lot of frustrating things, but not even Danny called her "stupid".
Admin User:DGG is taking a look at the WP:COI issues right now. But in general, yes I would support a AfD of this article regardless of the COI outcomes. Mbisanz ( talk) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me about the commercial war dialer you created. Simsong ( talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've listed Moneybomb for RfC. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I would point you to the page that was questioned, but I don't have the heart, strength, or energy to go through the disputes that we went through on the particular page. It has, suffice it to say, stuck with me that TVGuide and TVGuide Canada were not reliable sources. I hope you understand. I'm trying to play peacemaker and not get into any disputes over what was a simple question yesterday. IrishLass ( talk) 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please try and format comments and edit summaries to not be offensive and to be so everyone can read what is written by who. You uncivil behavior should be reported. IrishLass ( talk) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I only knew to do the research because Holy Cross was in my high school conference when I went to high school at Marist ... not far from Quigley. Peace! LonelyBeacon ( talk) 04:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Just read the "HOWTO exploit Wikipedia and get away with it" post on your blog. Very amusing.
I see one problem with your howto though.
If they do make clear on their userpage who they are, and their vanity/advertising article is nominated for deletion, a hell of a lot of people will automatically vote delete, no matter how well cited/notable the subject is. I would guess for instance that the MaraDNS article would almost certainly get deleted if it was ever nominated. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 02:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your comments and would encourage you to condense that material further. I believe I may be running up against 3RR so I cannot do so myself. However, I do not believe that material should be eliminated entirely.-- Samiharris ( talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you placed a {{
notability}} tag on this article questioning his notability. As the creator of the article and main (sole?) contributor, I would've appreciated a note on my talk page regarding this. Anyway, I believe his notability has already been asserted when the article was considered for speedy deletion - check the
talk page.
Also, according to your note in the talk page, you are questioning the statement "notable forensics expert". If that's what you think that needs substantiation, I think that a {{
fact}} tag would be more appropriate.
In any case, I hope I addressed the concern and if not, please drop me a note on my
talk page. Thanks! --
Kimon
talk
18:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think that you are gittin’ too personally involved here. Maybe you should relax, and let GOD do his job?-- Duchamps comb ( talk) 06:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's
no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to
blocks for disruption. Please
stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--
Ducha
mps_
comb
This is a reminder
don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point and
no personal attacks if
you continue to edit and violate the
civility and
disruptively violations of the
WP:POINT guideline and for continuing to
harass
neutral editors you risk being
blocked.--
Ducha
mps_
comb
Don't know if you've seen it, but WP:ANI#user: tqbf. I'm curious to see where this goes... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 05:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a notice of
harassment and if you contact me again or leave another comment on my talk page you risk being
blocked.--
Ducha
mps_
comb
MFA
17:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems to barely scrape by on notability, so I've withdrawn the nomination. It's still iffy, though. Corvus cornix talk 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I was planning on starting with these two and going from there. While there is no WP:Notability (Law), based on my reading of WP:N, I am assuming that any bill that fails to generate any significant discussion in the governing body in which it was proposed, or in the mainstream media, fails WP:N. Burzmali ( talk) 18:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
afd refers to entire articles for deletion, not sections of articles. Your link doesn't work.-- Goon Noot ( talk) 07:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have plans to improve application / software security sub-set of the security domain?
I can review, but I don't want to make all the fixes -- at least from a conceptual integrity standpoint)
The following pages have several isues from an application security perspective: information Security, information assurance, computer security, security engineering, application security * made some minimal improvements
It looks like they were mostly worked on either from an editorial perspective or by network and infrastructure security experience, without contributions from application security people. I'm glad people contributed, but it would be good to see the information improved to at least catch up with what's out in the public domain, if not improve.
The following collection is potentially the most cited and most reused in the application security space, particularly for Line of Business and Enterprise applications for both Java and Microsoft platforms:
You can check the citations in google sholar. The work is *borrowed* more than it's cited though and it tends not to get cited properly since there's printed books, PDF downloads and free HTML, and some of the work goes by different names (for example, "threats and countermeasures" vs. "improving web application security" ... etc.)
The work was used in competitive studies and assessments, for example OpenHack and some IBM vs. Microsoft studies.
While the core team behind the work has varied, J.D. Meyer has lead the teams over the years so there's consistency across the work. Some of the work is a little dated since it began in 2001, but it's mostly principles and patterns so it's been pretty stable over time. It looks like the full index is http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms998408.aspx.
The collection of work potentially has the largest consolidated body of free content backed by industry experts and has one of the largest community contribution lists for focused bodies of work. Some of the contributors cross-pollinated the information to OWASP and leveraged the information models from the patterns & practices.
Here's an example of the contributors and reviewers list from the patterns & practices site:
I suggest ...
The interplay at the even higher-level would be network, host, and application, where the host contains the runtime for the app framework (such as .NET) and the platform (such as Windows) This addresses the issue most software devs face -- the attacks that fall through the cracks between the network, host and app. They protect one level, but miss another. It might be worth pointing out defense in depth (not the over-used mantra, but the actual layers and the approach of people, process, technology ... and showing how the tech piece is where the net,app, host, data ... fit) and how operational policies affect the people, process, tech.
... I realize I might not have been clear -- the way to address web vs. kernel ... etc. is to frame by the archetype (apps vs. platforms vs. runtimes) -- I agree, otherwise yeah, the Web overshadows (well, it is sort of pervasive these days)
I would be glad to review this with you. You said:
“ | 'Delete' --- of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is. Instead of editing Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 --- which would require that RP supporters remove such important content as "how many World of Warcraft users have named their characters after Ron Paul" and "which community college professors have endorsed Ron Paul" and "where can the enlightened Wikipedia reader go to find the discussion forum for the Hotties-4-Ron-Paul calendar" --- RP content has instead metastasized into many other articles across the WP. Here's another interesting metric: we are now 5 days in to 2008, and the "2008 developments" article has eighteen paragraphs. This is the dictdef of undue weight, which is why these articles consistently die in AfD. --- | ” |
Let's examine the part that seems like valid reasoning:
It seems that you are saying we need fewer articles for this content... hence a merge argument is assumed. I recognize that you also have concerns about the quality of the content, but that is never an issue for AFD, so it gets ignored. Pre-merge or Post-merge editing can easily fix those concerns. I took your statement on face value that you were concerned about the content having "metastasized into many other articles". Merging fixes that perceived problem. JERRY talk contribs 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
He endorsed Paul, too. Kind of weird, but being contrary and contradictory is sort of his thing, I suppose.-- Newsroom hierarchies ( talk) 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you do get a bit carried away at times, and "untrustworthy" (while not slanderous) was over the line. As a Quaker, naturally I advise calm, deliberation and moderate language. Keep all edits about the subject matter, not about the two of you. Try to approach some of his fellow partisans who are less angry about the whole thing (Bulten, for example, is sometimes approachable). Nonetheless, if the charges keep combing from one side, you must respond. At some point, you may need to request formal mediation. -- Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your comment in Talk:Ron Paul#Newsletters. As the second paragraph of your comment is not about the protected edit request discussed in the thread, perhaps it could be split into a new section together with my reply? Please feel free to go ahead and make the change before other editors add to the thread. Terjen ( talk) 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, your opinion on and edits to Tom Vogt are being questioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Vogt (2nd nomination). You might want to drop by and comment. Jfire ( talk) 18:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you (and others?) took parts of the list and made them into paragraphs. Looks weird, inconsistent, and harder to read, don't you think? Can't think of sufficient justification. Korky Day ( talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I've removed a section on a talk page in which you previously edited per WP:BLP ( diff) — hope that's OK! -- Lea ( talk) 02:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Tom, I've done a large amount of editing on the article and have gotten to the point where I need a couple of people that have contributed to look-over it's remake. I have cleared a couple of the obvious flags out already, but I would like for someone to look it over for POV other than myself. Thanks for your help in advance. Konrad Kgrr ( talk) 16:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I must have made a mistake, I had no intention to remove the tag in _why's biography (btw, I had in fact reverted the page to a former state...) Sorry... And thanks for the civility in notifying me of my blunder. Zorbid ( talk) 15:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Banished Words List, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banished Words List. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — Emufarmers( T/ C) 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the Wikipedia article about Melih Abdulhayoglu, the CEO of Comodo.
I would value your opinions and edits of the article. This time I have tried extra-hard to keep the tone neutral. I would really appreciate your suggestions.
I feel that Melih is notable, not only for his patents, but also for his philanthropy. Because of Melih's business model, Comodo ensures that every Internet user has access to free firewall, antivirus and other security software. Comodo security software is now installed on 10 million computers worldwide. I don't know how to explain this on Melih's bio without sounding like puffery, but I wanted you to know about it.
Thanks for your help. Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 22:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Shon Harris. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shon Harris. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 09:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)