User talk:Tqbf

----- tqbf 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I agree. You are rude and immature.

Thank you, anonymous SPA vandal. --- tqbf 17:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't believe I've been uncivil to you. Thanks for taking the time to write. tqbf 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the by, because your credentials in the field were brought into the AfD discussion, can I ask when you've presented at or attended CRYPTO or EUROCRYPT?

tqbf 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If you want to question my credentials, you are welcome to review the sources at my press page at elonka.com . I also think if you take the time to actually watch the 12-minute video at the PBS site,[2] you'll find sufficient affirmation that I'm considered a world expert. As for CRYPTO (conference), I regularly have schedule conficts around that time of year, which have prevented me from attending, though I've been invited several times. I did speak at the last NSA Cryptologic History Symposium in Maryland, and my talk was well-received. I'll be attending the next one as well, though probably won't be speaking. I'm not familiar with EuroCrypt and generally don't speak outside of the U.S. unless someone is willing to pay my expenses. --Elonka 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reviewed them. I've also reviewed the history of your last RfA, the AfD debate for your own page, the extensive history on your talk page, particularly vis a vis questionable sourcing for articles, and reviewed the history of the "StankDawg" article, which your talk page previously cited as a substantial contribution of yours to WP, a fact I think would be worth mentioning on the AfD page. Respectfully, I'm going to request that you WP:AGF. I'm a professional in this field, and you seem to be an amateur (for instance, you don't read EUROCRYPT, and presumably don't follow the rest of the IACR). You're entitled to your opinion, Elonka, but I'd appreciate it if you did not use an appeal to your own authority to avoid addressing my arguments. I've put a substantial amount of work into researching and developing the argument in this AfD. No further response is necessary, and thank you for taking the time to write.--- tqbf 20:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Also, CRYPTO doesn't have invited speakers; it's an academic conference, to the proceedings of which papers are submitted. In what sense were you "invited" to CRYPTO? An official affiliation with an IACR conference is a big deal; you should tell us more about it.) --- tqbf 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you'll find that on Wikipedia, the argument of "I'm a professional and you're an amateur" is generally not well-received, especially when the professional is choosing to remain anonymous. You may also be interested in reading the article on the Essjay controversy. In any case, you are welcome to your opinion as to my qualifications and notability, or lack thereof. :) --Elonka 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're going to find my name at the top of this page, where it has been since prior to your last response. You'll find notable cryptographers below the fold of this section. I'm going to assume you're tacitly agreeing to accept my "good faith" intent; if not, I humbly advise you, person of 15,000 WP edits, to revisit WP:NPA. Where I felt I had imputed bad faith to you, I apologized for the mistake. I hope this concludes an unproductive discussion, and that I can avoid taking any more of your time on this page. --- tqbf 21:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please follow WP:VERIFY

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)[reply]

WP:AGF, Sam. The lack of immediate cite is why that's on the talk page, but I'm referring to security page, finding (2). Also: I know you didn't create the stub for MaraDNS, but you have extensively edited it; this is your own software. Is it WP:NOT? Do you have any statistics on who's using it? FWIW, I agree with "security-aware" as opposed to POV, subjective "highly-secure", but strongly disagree with "privilege escalation". --- tqbf 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopard criticism

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)[reply]

Nice job getting sources for the Java thing. But that forum ref should be excised, it doesn't meet Wiki's source requirements. V-train 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Warren caught it for me! I'm pretty happy with the article now. I think my issue with the APE thing is more emotional than rational at this point. --- tqbf 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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)[reply]

Sources

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)[reply]

I take your point, but in the context of this section, repeated criticisms in multiple outlets is relevant. The point is to capture criticisms of the OS. --- tqbf 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took this back to Leopard's Talk page, btw. --- tqbf 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI

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)[reply]

Let's call it a moment of political insensitivity that I didn't realize what a hot-button issue my self-cite (which I did to make a point) would be. Point taken. It's really frustrating to think that on an article as thoroughly policed as Leopard, so much strong material is going to be repelled. There has got to be some common-sense policy on self-evident technical facts. "XNU runs in 32 bit emulation mode on X86-64 CPUs when executing kernel code, but 64 bit native mode in userland". A true statement that I cannot source to something acceptable in the current regime. What gives?! --- tqbf 02:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tqbf, I'm having trouble reconciling your position on the Stankdawg article, where you've been removing biographical information and blog sources, whereas on the Mac OS X article, you're trying to cite your own blog, and are saying things like, "let noncontroversial facts stand."[3] Can you please clarify what exactly your intentions are? I'm trying to assume good faith here, but can you see how this has something of the appearance of a double-standard? --El on ka 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to cite my own blog, as I've made clear in the Talk for the page. I've come to AGF from you, Elonka, so I assume you just need to waste the time reading that annoying discussion to see why the Leopard article came to this end. Or not. I don't blame you.

Likewise, while I'm sure it's easy to paint a picture (particularly of tendentious editing) with the Stankdawg article, you and I both know what the story is there: with NN and NV material scrubbed, it's either going to be reduced to a stub or eliminated entirely, which would suit me just fine. --- tqbf 02:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AGF, I'm trying to do the same for you, truly. But, just something to think about, do you think it's possible that you're taking a bit too much of a personal interest in that particular article? There don't seem to be many editors on the talkpage who are agreeing with your stance. And the bit about "noncontroversial facts" seems to be one of the core issues at the moment. I'm trying to see your side, I really am, but it really does seem that you're being a bit over-strict on sourcing on one article, whereas you seem to want leeway on another. :/ --El on ka 02:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to see my side is to take the time to read Talk:Mac_OS_X_v10.5. The "leeway" you are talking about is the clearance to add this statement:

Sandboxing is implemented in the "Seatbelt" kernel extension, which is partially driven by an embedded Scheme interpreter and is built on TrustedBSD.

... to the article. It so happens that under the verifiably regime on that article that the only way to actually source that factual content is via my blog. Which is retarded. Self-evident noncontroversial facts should not require anal-retentive sourcing --- or in this case, any sourcing at all. This isn't an argument to get my blog sourced on WP, an idea which I find appalling. --- tqbf 02:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for butting in) Self-evident noncontroversial facts should not require anal-retentive sourcing - absolutely true, and neither is it required here. But the problem is what are "Self-evident noncontroversial facts". You and I might, but not everyone here has the ability to dig under the sheen of an OS and figure out what the kernel is doing from a heap of 0s and 1s. As such, such facts are not obvious to a majority of the userbase. Since anyone, irrespective of their credentials, can be the verifier, it has to be either obvious to them. Thats why the requirement of citation is here. So that people can either verify the text or know the steps to verify from the source. --soum ^talk 03:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks/Question

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)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion about how much COI and promotion is in the ACiD article.

I wouldn't have thought to challenge it, because I've heard of ACiD (I ran a BBS in the early '90s, and was briefly involved with Tribe).

One decent indicator of consensus on notability is a long history of constructive edits. Many different people have worked on the ACiD article since 2004(!).

It's possible that most of those edits came from people with COI issues, though it's not likely and probably not worth a lot of time to smoke out.

One thing you can do that is constructive and may balance the coverage is to find places in the ACiD article that aren't well-sourced. You can tag those with {{fact}}, inline. Be careful, because COI applies to you in the ACiD article as well.

As for Evoke, if you can provide reliable sources that back up an assertion of notability, an article about it is likely to survive. But be careful, because the argument that "Evoke is just like ACiD, and ACiD has an article!" argument is specifically not valid; see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

When I said "tripped sensors", I was just being colorful. I'm suggesting that whoever AfD'd your article may not have known anything about you, but rather just got set off by the tone of the article.

Bruce Schneier has enough publicity as it stands. =)

--- tqbf 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit (slang)

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)[reply]

Sure, np, just thought the back-and-forth was getting unproductive. --- tqbf 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPv4 address exhaustion

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)[reply]

Here's a bona fide. I've been in the field over 10 years. Never heard of an "HD ratio". Totally believe one exists. --- tqbf 03:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I responded to your query on my talk page. :) - Philippe | Talk 03:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StankDawg, binrev, etc

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)[reply]

It has not been my experience that "hackers" and "phreakers" are disinterested in media coverage. Quite the opposite. For what it's worth: it's not about the people, or even what they're doing (I'm not going to touch Mark Abene's page). It's about the content. WP:VSCA. --- tqbf 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you're trying to say. Can you rephrase? :S Also, your message made me click through my userpage. What a mess that was. Thanks again for the message, I'm humbled to think that someone had to actually read that userpage. What a load of junk. :S I've cleaned it up :S --Othtim (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bad Monk3y seemed to think I was going after these pages because I have a problem with "hackers". I just have a problem with bad Wikipedia pages. =) Your user page is far less messy than mine. --- tqbf 03:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like you're picking on hackers. Or maybe not so much "picking on hackers" as "picking hackers to pick at." If you get my meaning. There are plenty of other stub-class pages that, for example, use conference presentations as references. You must admit, you obviously do have a passion somewhat for hacking-ish topics. --Othtim (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, if you look, I do more than just delete NN hacker pages! =) --- tqbf 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hee, yeah, I know. --Othtim (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick hand?

You're an admin, right? What's the proper response to Talk:Gary_Miliefsky? Thanks in advance. --- tqbf 04:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It is against Wikipedia rules to make legal threats here... but we can't actually stop him from suing you ;-) I think you were wise to respond as carefully as you did. I have done what I can, and will do what needs to be done. Hesperian 04:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the right move here is to shut up and let the AfD take its course w/o further comment from me. --- tqbf 05:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to see people intimidated by baseless threats. So long as you only comment on the article and not the subject of the article, I don't see how there could be a problem. But I am not a lawyer, and that's not legal advice ;-) Hesperian 05:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the help. Thanks, I'm good now. --- tqbf 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Zlob

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)[reply]

I'm sure they exist, but don't believe they're notable enough to land on such a general page. --- tqbf 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the effort. You will probably want to read WP:N to ensure that Zlob is notable, as defined by Wikipedia. In particular, you'll want to find a reliable source, not a blog or a self-published newsletter, that backs up a claim to notability. If they're a notorious A-X trojan supplier, that might be easy to do.

Thanks for taking the time to message me, and let me know if I can do anything to help. --- tqbf 21:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks vs. external links vs. plaintext

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)[reply]

My experience of AFDs is that they normally go the right way. Especially with obvious software spam articles.

To be honest though I don't really expect our spammers to even bother trying to create articles on their software. The problem with Comparison or List articles is that it is so easy to just a "me too" entry. I expect our spammers to lose interest in pushing this issue, like they usually do. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of the materials about the criminal case "State of Oregon v. Randal L. Schwartz"

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)[reply]

Appreciate the polite response. I'm declaring a concern, not an error, and have taken it to talk. --- tqbf 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Halstead

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)[reply]

Hi. I didn't keep the article. The community voted on it, and "delete" lost. --- tqbf 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

err... what vote? Didn't see any discussion. Must have missed that one. But it's really a poor article but probably consistent with much of what on Wikipedia these days. I'll get around to excising the blatant cut and paste from the promotional bio and eliminate details that are no longer relevant given Halstead is no longer part of the New America foundation.198.23.5.73 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, sorry, this was a WP:PROD that I removed. The solution to this is easy: add {{subst:afd1}} to the top of the article and follow the directions (carefully) in the resulting template on the page to list the article for a vote-for-deletion. Before you do that, make an account for yourself (you will gain privacy by doing so). If you're right, the article will get killed during AfD.

I took the PROD off the article because I was easily able to find sources that referenced the subject. But I don't have an opinion about it beyond that. I'd be unlikely to vote in the AfD for the article. --- tqbf 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robert S Morris

I've merged the articles and redirected Robert S Morris to the Robert Morris dab page (the middle initial S was incorrect.) Spacepotato (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undid edit for IPv4 address exhaustion

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)[reply]

Thanks! I'm having WP:TW issues, particularly in Safari. I'll be more careful. --- tqbf 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apology

emailed you.DGG (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CISSP Article

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)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Virgil, but I'm not going to revert anything 3 times on the same article. There's no reason we won't be able to come up with consensus language here, but do bear in mind: I'm not going anywhere, and I am going to hash out POV issues with the article. --- tqbf 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

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)[reply]

Refactor

Please refactor your comment. cygnis insignis 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific about what you object to. I stand by the word "petty" for the "there are 6 opposes already, will you withdraw" question. I'm also not a "support" here; I wish you'd have done a better job opposing. --- tqbf 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stupid". Fix it. cygnis insignis 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it would have been stupid for Elonka Dunin, a "Shameless self-promoter, who has figured out how to manipulate Wikipedia", to submit an RfA that fails on its sixth oppose? What are you trying to accomplish by leaving these messages? I'd like to help you accomplish it. --- tqbf 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am formally cautioning you about civility, it is not about 'rules of engagement' as someone erroneously put it. You have misquoted me, that was highly disruptive - remove it immediately! cygnis insignis 00:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quoting you at all. I was saying, "Elonka would have to be stupid to have done what you claimed she did, and nobody has made a case for that". At this point, now that you've made "a thing" about this, you're going to either have to escalate this or let it go. I really hope we can just end it here; I have better things to do, as I'm sure you do too. --- tqbf 01:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading your response to my oppose:

Elonka may be a lot of frustrating things, but not even Danny called her "stupid".

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)[reply]

I disagree. Thanks for stopping by. If I can work up enough concern, I'll either re-add the text you remove, or rewrite it. Right now, I'm just going to feel real, real bad, have another glass of wine, and watch the rest of Harry Potter with my kids. I highly recommend this as a better use of your time than what you're doing now, but then, who am I to tell you what to do? Have a better day! --- tqbf 01:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstorm Enterprises

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)[reply]

Thanks for the FYI, I tend to take Jimbo's self-imposed restriction from editing his own bio, as a standard other's should adhere to, but you are right that as long as a user declares their COI, then they may carefully contribute. I've addd the diffs and explanations to Simsong's page. Mbisanz (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're looking out for this stuff. Take care! --- tqbf 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, [4] suggestions on how to proceed? Do we take this a formal request by a subject to delete his BLP? He's the creator of two of these articles, is this a speedy author authorized? Mbisanz (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't AfD an article about Garfinkle, so, if he wants the articles deleted, he can delete them himself. Meanwhile, if he's disinvested in them, I imagine we'll have no trouble cutting the POV and peacock language. I wish Sandstorm hadn't been written up in Wired back in '98, but knowing it has, I can't in good faith renominate it. --- tqbf 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Garfinkel and Sandstorm are def notable, I just don't want him coming back to bite us that we wouldn't remove a bio on him. Sophal's Ear I question, but not enough to do anything about it. I'll check back in a week and see if he's still editing the articles. Mbisanz (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that you should just remove the information you find objectionable. Simsong (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we addressed this on User_talk:Mbisanz; thanks for giving my edits a once-over. --- tqbf 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

war dialer

Please tell me about the commercial war dialer you created. Simsong (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it, just worked on it. I'll take the rest of this offline later in the week. --- tqbf 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep the rest of us in suspense. It's okay, you can tell us the name, we won't get mad. uʍop ǝpısdn‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉ (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the problem here. =) Here's bona fides; if that's what you're looking for, I understand. :) --- tqbf 22:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moneybomb RfC

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)[reply]

Thanks. I responded, but I'm going to try to disentangle myself from this article as well. --- tqbf 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TVGuide

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)[reply]

It won't take heart, strength, and energy to justify sourcing TV content to TV Guide. I'm suggesting maybe we don't engage controversies that don't really exist. --- tqbf 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying back in August there was a user who wanted more than TVGuide as source for a soap article making serveral reverts, edits, citation requests, re-citiation requests when TVGuide was the citation, and made life miserable for some of us. I'm not making controversies that don't exist. They do exist. Regardless, I used it as an example, as I am entitled to as in my experience, TVGuide has been challenged as a source. And what I said about the heart, strength, and energy is opening the article up to yet another indiscriminate editor by pointing out which one got so much flack. I don't have the energy to fight for the article ever again. IrishLass (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have the energy to write 130 word talk page messages about it; I simply suggest you redirect that energy to more productive outlets. You clearly have issues with how pages you've worked on were tagged. To make this discussion more relevant to Village pump, maybe you could propose a specific policy regarding tagging, and see what the responses are? No response necessary. --- tqbf 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get over your issues with people's word count. I type 70+ words a minute with little to no effort at all. I was trying to be nice but you seem utterly incapable of accepting people's statements/words/gestures. For that I truly feel sorry for you. Happy Holidays, although you present yourself as someone who'd rather be miserable and make others that ways. Just an observation. And my articles haven't been tagged, so you're assuming facts not in evidence. You seem to assume a lot quite frankly.IrishLass (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you must be having a really bad day. I'm sorry. Feel better! --- tqbf 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm having a great day. Excellent as a matter of fact. You seem to be the sourpuss who can't seem to understand what others efforts are including those of explaining on a talk page, as you suggested to others last night in Village Pump. So which is it? Talk pages or Village Pump? It'd be nice to be clear so all involved can understand the mindset. IrishLass (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else I can do to improve your editing experience here? I'm now confused as to what we're discussing. --- tqbf 19:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is obviously an issue for you

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)[reply]

Do you know where to report it? I'm happy to help you if you need it. --- tqbf 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do. I just needed to wait for you to be uncivil again before I did. Thanks for obliging. IrishLass (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Glad to help? Have a good day. --- tqbf 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross H.S. - AfD

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)[reply]

Ignatius, here; my brother was Marist '95. =) --- tqbf 04:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Advertising Vulnerability?

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)[reply]

Yep. That suggestion: not an accident. ;) --- tqbf 03:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Klein

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)[reply]

Dave Kleiman

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)[reply]

Thanks for your note. To respond to your points:

I do have it in my watchlist but, I've got a few thousand pages and it just got missed. I'm sure you know how that is :)
I'll work on it and post it.

Happy New Year!

--Kimon^talk 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

np. Don't let me rush you! =) --- tqbf 01:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul Shizzle

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)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. --- tqbf 07:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning!!! Warning!!!

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

Thanks for sharing. --- tqbf 06:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

WEEE-oooooh-WEEE-oooooh-WEEE-ooooh. Need help finding WP:ANI? Good luck! --- tqbf 07:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I got the same message as you. Does this count as canvassing? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 11:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...

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)[reply]

Best not to dignify it, I think. That guy is really strange. --- tqbf 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm jealous, I figured I would be nominated for suggesting that RP isn't quite ready for sainthood. Burzmali (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually feel kind of bad about it; he undoubtedly feels baited into an ANI report. Regardless; the RP odd-yssey is almost at an end; the caucuses are in just a few days. --- tqbf 19:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, by repeatedly commenting in the DRV you are weakening your position, not strengthening it. Trust the process. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's something I've just recently figured out. Appreciate the heads-up, and have said what I have to say. --- tqbf 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO MORE CONTACT!

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)[reply]

Please do not edit my comments on your talk page; you do not own your talk page. --- tqbf 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, it's kind of annoying when you repeatedly re-edit your messages on other people's talk pages; maybe you can compose them offline and paste them in? Every time you make minor grammatical changes to these messages, I get the "orange bar of death" new message alert, and then have to go look at the edit history to find out it's just you tuning your warnings. --- tqbf 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StandWithUs

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)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. Just a heads-up. Thanks! --- tqbf 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Suggestion...

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)[reply]

Remember that any additional standards for notability (such as for books or music) extends but does not replace the core notability requirement; a topic is notable if it has significant coverage in reliable independent sources. A law that goes nowhere and never comes to a vote is still notable if Time writes about it. --- tqbf 18:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Time is "the mainstream media" is it not? I'm not trying to rewrite policy here. The catch is "significant coverage", very few proposed bill get that before they are up for a vote. Burzmali (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not trying to argue with you, just noting the pitfall of arguing about articles based on things like whether the bill came up for a vote; proposed legislation can be NN even if it passes and becomes law, and conversely can be notable even if it never comes up for a vote. But I think we're saying the same thing. --- tqbf 19:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

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)[reply]

The section you're referring to transplants the contents of a deleted article --- one that was specifically, explicitly not to be merged --- into the main Ron Paul article. --- tqbf 07:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Software / Application Security

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:

Security Engineering: [5]
Improving Web Application Security: [6]
Building Secure ASP.NET Applications [7]
Threat Modeling Web Applications: [8]
Arch and Design Review for Security: [9]
security code review: [10]

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:

Thanks to external reviewers: Mark Curphey, Open Web Application Security Project and Watchfire; Andy Eunson (extensive review); Anil John (code access security and hosting scenarios); Paul Hudson and Stuart Bonell, Attenda Ltd. (extensive review of the Securing series); Scott Stanfield and James Walters, Vertigo Software; Lloyd Andrew Hubbard; Matthew Levine; Lakshmi Narasimhan Vyasarajan, Satyam Computer Services; Nick Smith, Senior Security Architect, American Airlines (extensive review of the Securing series); Ron Nelson; Senthil Rajan Alaguvel, Infosys Technologies Limited; Roger Abell, Engineering Technical Services, Arizona State University; and Doug Thews.
Microsoft Product Group: Michael Howard (Threat Modeling, Code Review, and Deployment Review); Matt Lyons (demystifying code access security); Caesar Samsi; Erik Olson (extensive validation and recommendations on ASP.NET); Andres De Vivanco (securing SQL Server); Riyaz Pishori (Enterprise Services); Alan Shi; Carlos Garcia Jurado Suarez; Raja Krishnaswamy, CLR Development Lead; Christopher Brown; Dennis Angeline; Ivan Medvedev (code access security); Jeffrey Cooperstein (Threat Modeling); Frank Swiderski; Manish Prabhu (.NET Remoting); Michael Edwards, MSDE; Pranish Kumar, (VC++ PM); Richard Waymire (SQL Security); Sebastian Lange; Greg Singleton; Thomas Deml (IIS Lead PM); Wade Hilmo (IIS); Steven Pratschner; Willis Johnson (SQL Server); and Girish Chander (SQL Server).
Microsoft Consulting Services and Product Support Services (PSS): Ilia Fortunov (Senior Architect) for providing continuous and diligent feedback; Aaron Margosis (extensive review, script injection, and SQL Injection); Jacquelyn Schmidt; Kenny Jones; Wade Mascia (Web Services and Enterprise services); Aaron Barth; Jackie Richards; Aaron Turner; Andy Erlandson (Director of PSS Security); Jayaprakasam Siddian Thirunavukkarasu (SQL Server security); Jeremy Bostron; Jerry Bryant; Mike Leuzinger; Robert Hensing (reviewing the Securing series); Gene Ferioli; David Lawler; Jon Wall (threat modeling); Martin Born; Michael Thomassy; Michael Royster; Phil McMillan; and Steven Ramirez.
Thanks to Joel Scambray; Rich Benack; Alisson Sol; Tavi Siochi (IT Audit); Don Willits (raising the quality bar); Jay Nanduri (Microsoft.com) for reviewing and sharing real world experience; Devendra Tiwari and Peter Dampier, for extensive review and sharing best IT practices; Denny Dayton; Carlos Lyons; Eric Rachner; Justin Clarke; Shawn Welch (IT Audit); Rick DeJarnette; Kent Sharkey (Hosting scenarios); Andy Oakley; Vijay Rajagopalan (Dev Lead MS Operations); Gordon Ritchie, Content Master Ltd; Chase Carpenter (Threat Modeling); Matt Powell (for Web Services security); Joel Yoker; Juhan Lee [MSN Operations]; Lori Woehler; Mike Sherrill; Mike Kass; Nilesh Bhide; Rebecca Hulse; Rob Oikawa (Architect); Scott Greene; Shawn Nandi; Steve Riley; Mark Mortimore; Matt Priestley; and David Ross.
Thanks to our editors: Sharon Smith; Kathleen Hartman (S&T OnSite); Tina Burden (Entirenet); Cindy Riskin (S&T OnSite); and Pat Collins (Entirenet) for helping to ensure a quality experience for the reader.
Finally, thanks to Naveen Yajaman; Philip Teale; Scott Densmore; Ron Jacobs; Jason Hogg; Per Vonge Nielsen; Andrew Mason; Edward Jezierski; Michael Kropp; Sandy Khaund; Shaun Hayes; Mohammad Al-Sabt; Edward Lafferty; Ken Perilman; and Sanjeev Garg (Satyam Computer Services). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysecurity (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. Wow. You've given this more thought than I have. I'd love to help bring more app security perspective to the pages you noted; also, where your concern is that the pages reflect operational IT security and not app security, my concern is that the app security content reflect web security to the detriment of systems (kernel, embedded, etc) security.

Do you have a plan of attack? I can create and organize content quickly, but I don't have a strategy right now. --- tqbf 18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest ...

organizing by archetypes(Web apps, Web Services, Desktop Apps, Frameworks and platforms)
Higher level - app (app arch categories) - The app-level security frame [11] would apply to the app level, but vary slightly by app types (web app, web service, desktop ...)
Lower-level - code (code vulnerability categories) - A code-level security frame for vulnerability categories (Range; Type; Memory; Cryptography and Secrets; Authentication, Authorization and Trust; Input Validation; Logic Errors; Misuse of Language Features; Synchronization and Timing)

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)

copied from my talk page (please reply there)

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:

of course much of the content is notable; notability isn't the issue, sprawl is.

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)[reply]

WP:NOT#NEWS is not intended to say that things covered in the news can't go in wikipedia until after a long time has passed. It is just saying that immediate coverage in the news is not by itself evidence of notability. Where the subject is clearly notable, and the event is clearly significant (as was asserted by yourself and several other editors who participated in the AFD), then the notnews does not apply. If there was some particular nuance that did apply, then the person should have explained it... a simply *Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, absent any explanation is to be ignored, if it is contrary to what everyone else said. As for your comment you just copied above... it was too flowery for me to understand what you were getting at. You may choose to write AFD comments such that they would be easily understood by those who know nothing about the actual subject of the article, because normally that is who will be closing the debate. References to Pluto jupiter and jettisoning almanacs was just too much for me to decipher, so it was easy to ignore, especially where you had made a comment I did understand elsewhere in the debate. If I was the closing admin, I may have taken the time to ask what you meant, if the closing was a close call, but don't count on that when AFD has a backlog. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sullivan

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)[reply]

I'm going to mail him. --- tqbf 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously going to make the case that Sullivan does not endorse him for prez, but simply for the GOP nom --- but I'm not going to fight for it. --- tqbf 03:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comb problem

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)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't seen Bulten around; I'll ping him and see if he wants to get more involved. The campaign article started heavily RP-biased, but I feel like part of Duchamps problem is that there are slightly more skeptics editing it now than supporters. --- tqbf 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Is it crazy to notice that Quakers tend to be really effective debaters? I'm also thinking of Russ Nelson, who's pretty famous for it in my industry as well. (FWIW, I don't support anyone yet in '08, and I'm a Chicago Dem; didn't go to the convention in '04, but I did canvass Toledo for Kerry --- now you and DC and everyone else know my bias.) --- tqbf 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admissions

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)[reply]

Done! --- tqbf 08:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Although perhaps the first paragraph belongs to the discussion above? Do what you like. Terjen (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vogt

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)[reply]

Ron Paul endorsements list format

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)[reply]

BLP section

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)[reply]

Deep packet inspection

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. KonradKgrr (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies

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)[reply]

AfD nomination of Banished Words List

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)[reply]

Please check

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)

AfD nomination of Shon Harris

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)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)[reply]