User talk:Fubar Obfusco/Archive 2005 Jan-Aug

Cool name.

Ground 03:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that! BTW, thanks for the good edit on programming errors.

About those subheadings...

Regarding the change on Political spectrum. It says [[1]] that <h> tags can be used to keep items out of the table of contents. You're right here that they should be in the table; I had been used to using them alot for repetitive elements on another project. But I thought I would mention it. Juan Ponderas

Scientology

Good job on that NPOV rephrasing of the Helena Krobin section of Scientology. --Theo (Talk) 19:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hi there! You said the sockpuppet proposal could be reworded... please tell us how you'd like to reword it, thanks. Radiant_* 11:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppet/Proposal

Hi there! I've reworded this a bit per everyone's comment, and would like to get support to make this a guideline and allow it to be used. Could you please indicate if you agree? If you want a rewording, please be bold. Thanks, Radiant_* 12:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Woods Hole

Thanks for taking care of that. I couldn't get to it when I noticed it today. Good work. SDC 04:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chlorophobia

I found sources that it is a phobia however the info inside I could not source. It would be a better vfd candidate. I don't have time to list it now however. Sorry Falphin 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Christianity

You are funny, I see that. I wish it didn't have to be at the expense of others, *me* in this case. --Vizcarra 9 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

Unusual spellings are funny. It's not meant personally. --FOo 9 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)

It's not really that unusual. --Vizcarra 10:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Template locations

I have noticed you discussed template locations at Wikipedia talk:template messages.

One user has unilaterally been moving templates from articles to talk pages en-masse (over 100 articles are affected during a spate made by the user last night). I have spent some time trying to resolve this issue.

There is now a poll discussing where templates belong created at Wikipedia:Template locations, and a discussion at Template talk:Expansion. ~~~~ 14:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template locations

Hi, you voted for the AID-template to be on the talk page. Is there a specific reason why you discriminate against this project as compared to the almost identical COTW? --Fenice 05:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
If you would like to insist on the AID-template having specific different rules than the others, please tell us on the Wikipedia talk:Template locations.--Fenice 06:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Spyware.png

regarding your reversion of our edit to the the "spyware" page...

Sorry if we didn't follow protocol. Is one expected to actually edit the graphic and/or correct the caption?

May I trust that you are editing the graphic to correct the information?

Thanks.

I edited the caption, yes. --FOo 02:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you editing the caption. I see that it now says "Spyware and other toolbars". I work on a team that is working on the Desktop.com toolbar that is included in the graphic. Would you not agree that the inclusion of our toolbar in the image that is displayed on the "Spyware" page implies--at the very least--that our toolbar is Spyware? Our toolbar does nothing without the express permission of the user as spelled out in the EULA. We don't want an image of it included in an image meant to illustrate Spyware. Does that make sense? Thanks for your consideration. Respectfully,--Wksears 17:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I agree that we should be careful not to imply that all of these toolbars are spyware. I can imagine that it's a particularly pointed issue in your case since the Desktop.com toolbar is at the top of the image.

I can't speak to the specifics of your product -- after all, Gator and WhenU also claim that their programs only act with the permission of the user and in accordance with an EULA ... unfortunately, in my experience this is a false claim on their part. I'll assume that it is a true claim on your part, as it seems to be with Google's and Alexa's toolbars (which are also both depicted in the image.

I don't know what the intention was of the user who contributed the image. Perhaps it was simply to represent the absurdity of a user interface almost entirely covered with toolbars. The more I look at it, though, the less it seems to be a good depiction of spyware -- the most recognizable piece of spyware there is Bonzi Buddy, which isn't a toolbar at all. So it's a confusing image at best.

I'm curious -- by any chance, might you have an alternative screenshot of spyware activity that we could use instead? --FOo 18:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a suitable image. We're really focused on building our software, so we haven't made any efforts to document other people's software, including software that may be considered Spyware.

I appreciate you taking my claim that our software is not Spyware in good faith. I can refer you to a critical article by a non-associated third party. He had many concerns and reservations about our software, but tested it objectively and found that it did not collect any information from users in a manner inconsistent with the published EULA ("I had thoroughly tested and checked over the Snap toolbar and discovered that it’s actually clean" in his words). Note that he's talking about the Snap.com UltraSearch toolbar, which is essentially the same software as the Desktop.com toolbar, upon which it is based. (I work for Snap).

I think it is reasonable, given the extreme stigma associated with being Spyware and the resulting damage such an association can do to a product or company in the marketplace, that unless and until a suitable screen shot is generated and published by someone that does not include non-Spyware products, that this particular image rightfully should be removed. --Wksears 19:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You've convinced me. See the article talk page -- I've moved the offending image there, and am actively looking for more relevant images. --FOo 00:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate you considering my point of view. :o) --William 23:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hi!

I wonder if this guild is anything that you may benefit from, and in that case, feel invited to sign in :)

Have a good day :)

--Striver 01:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Spyware Active Protection

Hi'ya, just a heads up, I'm bringing up a topic on your latest entry into the Spyware article at Talk:Spyware#On_Real_Time_Protection. --Paul Laudanski 23:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of pages

Question: Hi Fuber. Why are you relating on one page and one year old information and removing normal sites who have links to so called not effective programs? --ugnius

I don't know what the first half of your question means. What is "relating on one page"? As to the second half, spam is a constant problem, and it's everyone's job to remove it. Adding links to a site that seems to exist only to promote a piece of software is not OK here -- Wikipedia is not a collection of advertisements. You might consider consulting this guide on "how not to be a spammer".

that site exist not only to promote particular software. It is full of valuable information along with lots of reviews, articles, tutorials, user discussions, other removal programs, manual removal instructions, list of resources, all unique, written by hand. So removal just because one site doesnt like one of the adverts (based on 1 year old info)- is not normal.

Please continue this discussion on Talk:Spyware so that the other contributors to that article will see it. --FOo 14:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

CastleCops

Hi. Would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#CastleCops? I am merely asking for a copy so that I might impove and resubmit if appropriate. --Ikester 01:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Zipera speedy tag

Hi, Zipera did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Please do not use the tags on articles which do not meet the criteria. Kappa 06:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I believed, and still do, that the article did meet the criteria: specifically article criterion 7 -- an article about a person which does not allege notability. --FOo 17:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's group, not a person, and it alleges notability: "They are very important part of polish hip hop scene." Kappa 22:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Groups are made of people, and follow the same rules. See the talk page for the article. I can create an article calling myself "a very important Internet encyclopedist", but that doesn't make me one. Articles about people need to specifically state the accomplishments of a person. --FOo 22:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)