User talk:Fubar Obfusco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Archive[edit]

Censorship Project[edit]

I really liked your message in censorship, and am glad such a project exists. People tried to delete the autofellitio images without explaining their viewpoint. I think the most effective way to get that project working is to simply use it to monitor potential censorship abuses, to perhaps list of works/images that tried to be censored in the past so everyone can monitor them to make sure they are not being censored now, etc.

Here's your message:

Censorship doesn't require cops. Censorship happens when someone destroys or prevents access to a work of communication for the purpose of suppressing a viewpoint. For instance, there have been many cases in the United States where radical groups at universities have stolen campus newspapers when those newspapers have expressed views to the groups' disliking. This is censorship, even though the radical group is still a marginalized group with no access to cops to enforce their way of thinking.
An organized group with the purpose of censoring Wikipedia can certainly do a great deal of damage, and could, for instance:
  1. "win" revert wars by being able to deploy editors to revert in an organized fashion -- locking the censored articles up in revert war and suppressing their development;
  2. suppress whole articles by deploying editors to VfD in an organized fashion, in the manner of the group that campaigns against deletion of articles about schools;
  3. drive people off the project with intimidation, insults, and harassment; or simply because people who thought Wikipedia was an open-minded project will be very dismayed to find their contributions labeled "indecent".
The presence of an organized, efficient pro-censorship group, willing to defy Wikipedia policy or to "game the system", is a hazard for these reasons. Wikipedia procedures such as VfD are not immune to gaming or to being overwhelmed by an organized group, even if that group is far from the whole project's consensus. Just because there are more of us who oppose censorship than there are people who are for it, doesn't mean that we should slack off if they organize.
Because censorship is antithetical to Wikipedia's policies, it is entirely reasonable that a group intent on censoring Wikipedia be disallowed from organizing -- just as a group intent on vandalizing, or creating vanity articles, or posting personal attacks, or in any other way breaking the rules should be disallowed from organizing. But if it cannot be prevented, those who wish to protect Wikipedia's policies against censorship should likewise organize: to draw attention to abuses committed by censors; to countervail organized efforts to revert or delete articles for the purpose of censorship; to offer support to those being intimidated by censors; and to advocate for the protection and enforcement of policies against censorship and harassment.

he/she/it/they/etc.[edit]

It will be interesting to see how long before someone puts back the he-she debate. It is a matter of no small debate. And while Shake-speare may have used "they" as a singular word, it is still conventional practice (as far as I know) for English teachers to teach that "they" is incorrect singular usage. Personally, I think "they" works just fine. I use it that way all the time, and I have a college degree, don'cha know. "He-or-she" is awkward and annoying. And I once had an English instructor who told me that, "correct" or not, "they" will eventually become standard usage for that very reason. Wahkeenah 16:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It's true that some instructors disapprove of singular "they". Some disapprove of splitting infinitives too -- another artificial "rule" constructed by professors who wanted to make English more like Latin. In both cases, the "rule" is a slavish imitation of Romance-language grammar, and shows a disrespect for the English literature. --FOo 17:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
...and for the inherent democracy of the language, which is one reason why English has become the universal language, and not French or Latin or Serbo-Croatian. As noted in the article, "to boldly go where no [substitute politically correct term] has gone before" just sounds better than "to go boldly". And let's not forget the time-honored saying: "A preposition is a word you should never end a sentence with." And notice how I said "you", not "one", another awkward construct in many cases, which is thankfully dying. And that use of "thankfully" is also grammatically incorrect, but it works. Wahkeenah 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiffle Bat[edit]

Wifflebat.png

I present you with this award in honor of your astoundingly reasonable and true statements in the aftermath of the AFD-delisting furor. ~~ N (t/c) 03:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD deletions[edit]

Hi Fubar. I just wanted to tell you that I was very impressed with your insightful comments concerning Snowspinner's AfD deletions, at ANI and his RfC. Thanks. Paul August 21:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Threat[edit]

Hello, I responded to your comments at the link above. If you'd like to assist in trying to help try and make him conform to community civility standards, i'd welcome your assistance, although he's a serial bad behavior offender, as evident on his rfc. Karmafist 14:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Further to your criticism of his threat, Karmafist has first banned me for 24 hours, falsely accusing me of vandalism, and is now threatening to ban me indefinately. He seems to think that only I object to his behaviour. Andy Mabbett 23:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Charles Lenhsherr speedy removal[edit]

Howdy! Just an FYI, I've left a note on User talk:RHaworth asking why he removed the speedy tag from the Charles Lenhsherr article, in case you want to track the issue. - CHAIRBOY () 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You OK with putting Image:Zombie-process.png up for a vote for featured picture?[edit]

I really like the diagram you made (especially the faces) about botnets and was wondering, are you OK with me posting it up for a vote for featured picture? --Bash 20:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad you like it! Sure. Thanks! --FOo 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Zombie process with colours changed

There's some opposition over at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Zombie Process, and I've changed some colours to make it more "acceptable". Take a look at it and see what you think. --Bash 22:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Eh, well, it's certainly not a work of heartrending brilliance. ~.~;
I'm not sure I like the red -- it looks a little glaring on my screen. Could just be a gamma difference (I'm on an Apple Studio Display). The pink was intended to be "SPAM" colored .... --FOo 03:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Done. They're also saying that the picture needs to be bigger. Could you resize it? --Bash 06:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Computer science[edit]

You have just modified the computer science page. I agree with your modifications, except when you say computer science is not an experimental science. It is true that CS is not an experimental science in essence, but not true that CS mnever makes use of experiments, therefore I think your claim that CS is not an experimental science is misleading, and you could revise your otherwise valuable contribution without implying that CS is not experimental. As an explanantion to my point of view, let me point out that many algortithms are tested experimentally ONLY (until formal analysis is possible). For example, the strategies for implementations of the simplex algorithm are described through experimental results since no theoretical results exist. This was just a classical and VERY important example, but this state of affair is very common in many cases: if you cant analyse formally an algorithm, you analyse it experimentally. Even when you have a formal analysis, you often add simulation results. Often, the analysis is made using simplifying assumption, and final validation is by testing the efficiency experimentally, via simulations. Computer science is full of experiments!!! (And I am a theoretical computer scientist, so I am kind of preaching against my own school...)

Kind regards, --Powo 09:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My goal there was to remove and to specify the mistake of the claim by User:Jhballard that computer science was "the accumulated knowledge through scientific methodology by computation or by the use of the computer."
Well done!
First off, I wanted to clarify the difference between computer science and scientific computing -- the use of computation to work with scientific data and thereby "accumulate knowledge". The above definition would mean that a physicist who uses computer simulations is doing computer science thereby, and that the physics results obtained would be computer science results since they were obtained "by the use of the computer". Clearly, not anything one does on a computer is computer science. :)
Second, it seems to me that a field of study can have some empirical aspects to it without being an experimental science. (For instance, creative writing is usually not considered an experimental science, even though it does have empirical aspects, such as writing workshops in which writers test their work against audiences.) The algorithm examples that you cite are certainly empirical.
However, over the history of CS, most progress has not been by experiment but by mathematical discovery and engineering-like design. Whether one thinks of new algorithms (for instance) as being discovered or invented, they are clearly not arrived at by experiment and hypothesis in the way that (say) physics results are.
It is silly, I suggest, to argue over whether or not CS "is" a science, as some do. That would depend on what one means by "science"; whether this is taken to mean all knowledge-gathering; or only the empirical; or even only the experimental. Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say that while there are nooks within CS that use experiment and hypothesis, by and large CS is not an experimental science in the sense that physics or chemistry are. --FOo 13:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Your point of view is sensible. As I said, I entirely agree with your modifications, except for the "non experimental" point of view. I am not sure at all to be convinced though. You give an example from linguistics, which is not science first of all. Also, you make a distinction between empirical results and experimental science. That's interesting! Could you elaborate?... (btw, sorry for the initial posting of this message at the top of the page). Best regards, --Powo 15:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm using "empirical" to describe methods for gaining knowledge by observing or interacting with the outside world and forming descriptions of what's observed -- as opposed to gaining knowledge by contemplation or deduction from first principles. Maybe a more formal expression would be the philosopher's category a posteriori, as opposed to a priori.
I feel pretty safe in saying that the pursuits which are definitively science -- physics, biology, chemistry, and so on -- are also very clearly a posteriori. They depend on observation and interaction with the natural world. Even though modern physics is very mathematical, you can't deduce physics facts from mathematical first principles alone.
Is this true? Is this true for, say... Relativity?
In contrast, mathematics and logic usually considered the paradigm examples of the a priori. You can (if you're clever enough, and have enough time -- possibly infinite time) deduce the most complex mathematical facts from first principles. (You can do math in your head without reference to the outside world, even if you're a brain in a vat. Axiomatic geometry, for instance, is consistent even without measuring any actual lines or circles anywhere.)
I'm using "experimental science" to refer to a subset of a-posteriori pursuit of knowledge. Specifically, I mean the disciplines which center around something (vaguely!) resembling the "scientific method" of hypothesis formulation, experiment design, testing, repetition, and so on. So there are plenty of pursuits that center around empirical knowledge but aren't experimental science. (Most crafts, for instance -- or the formalization of crafts, which we call engineering.) We can say they're "scientific" if by that we mean "well-founded on real-world knowledge" (as opposed to, say, faith) but these practices don't themselves involve the "generate and test" process of doing science.
What I'm getting at is that the basic truths and problems of computer science are more like mathematics than physics. Take algorithmic complexity, for instance -- you don't have to run experiments to determine what it is for a given algorithm; that's a mathematical truth derivable from the algorithm itself (when formally specified). Or take the halting problem -- we wouldn't accept experiments as evidence that it's insoluble; we do accept formal proof.
Algorithmic complexity (my phD subject it was :) is probably the most "more mathematics-like (or logics-like) than physics-like" case in CS. So, its probably not the best example to show that CS is also an experimental science (wich is my non neutral point of view (non NPOV)). However, even in this case!...

Take a look at: http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/people/frank/phases.html (got it by google "NP-hard + phase transition"). NP-hardness is studied from an experimental point of view. Further more it seems to me this experiment is of the "contemplative" type: you take an NP-hard problem, and you "look" at it... Also, its been considerd lately that NP=?P could be independant from the axioms (i.e. undecidable!...) However, there could still be some kind of "physical" answer to NP=?P. What about the "evidence" given by the fact that if P=NP, we would have found an P algorithm for at least one of so many NP-complete problems? (Yeah, that's not really a point, I agree. But it's part of not so unusual irrational beleafs within CS theorists...)

There are certain cases -- the ones you describe above, for instance -- where empirical methods are used in CS research, because the theory hasn't been invented yet. But it seems to me that it's understood that the theory will eventually get there, and would be preferred ... just as mathematicians would not like to settle for a numerical approximation to something, but actually have a constructive proof of it. --FOo 16:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this not often the case in physics too? E.g. physics of "material" (not sure this is the correct english word...).

Dear FOo, I've read with interest your point of view, and added a few remarks/questions "inline", in case you would like to push the discussion/reflexion further. Best regards: --Powo 20:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I agree that many good and useful websites contain ads. There should be no hard-and-fast rule regarding ads, as its more of a case-by-case judgment. The consideration should be the ratio of ads vs. useful content. If a site has more ads than content and information, then I'd favor deleting it. Or it the topic is less notable, maybe an ad-supported site is the only (or one of few) references and then would be okay. --Aude 14:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Bots on the Wikipedia[edit]

For future reference, unauthorized bots are not permitted by the English Wikipedia, and certainly automatic spelling bots. See Wikipedia:Bots for more details on bot policy. --AllyUnion (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Just a quick note to say that ShadowH is Ciz. I've given him his warning, the rest's up to him. Feel free to delete this message when you're done. FT2 12:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem fairly sane[edit]

Have your read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements? Maybe you should add your own?

  • Thank you for your approval, but I don't think I have the time to serve adequately on the Arbitration Committee. Moreover, I fear that after a couple of cases you'd see me propose remedies like this: "Resolved, that both parties are mindless jerks who'll be the first up against the wall when the Revolution comes." --FOo 21:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If most of the cases before the Arbitration Committee involve people who work for SCC Marketing on both sides, maybe there is some way that we can curtail Wikipedia's involvement in internal SCC matters. What does the edition of Wikipedia that fell through the time warp from the future say about how we solved this problem? ☺ Uncle G 02:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Spyware[edit]

I saw that you removed one of my edits. The fact is computer hackers are difficult to trace and mostly impossible to find. The sure method of prevention is to prohibit networks access to the outside world. All computers are vulnerable. Hackers are tenacious and unscrupulous - some do it for financial gain; others just for the fun of it. Even users on Wikipedia are vulnerable especially exposing one's IP address, leaving behind "electronic bread crumbs". ,,,,,Ariele 17:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Part of what you say is basically true, but not particularly relevant to the matter of spyware. Spyware is not created "for the fun of it". By and large it is created by known, aboveboard companies such as Claria and First 4 Internet. In the case of less aboveboard spyware creators, money is still channeled to them by exploiting aboveboard advertising mechanisms such as affiliate marketing programs, Google AdSense, and the like. While spyware programs conceal themselves on a computer, spyware creators are necessarily sufficiently exposed so as to be able to collect revenue. Otherwise they wouldn't bother!
Prohibiting networks access to the outside world is a technique that is vital for particular types of networks, and utterly irrelevant for others. For a military network or some internal corporate networks, isolation of this sort makes sense. For an online business or a home network, it is absurd: these networks are useful to their users only by dint of being connected to the Internet, not isolated.
Network filtering tools such as firewalls are valuable at preventing certain kinds of attacks -- such as network worms -- but are useless at preventing spyware. Spyware is usually installed on a system in response to user action: such as going to a Web site that exploits IE vulnerabilities; or installing a piece of downloaded proprietary software; or inserting a trojaned compact disc. A firewall which prevents me from going to Web sites is stopping me from doing what I want to do. A firewall cannot stop software installation or the insertion of a CD.
There is no particular hazard to "exposing your IP address". Your IP address is transmitted every time that you send anything on the Internet: email messages, Web requests, IMs, what-have-you. That's how the Internet works! You cannot rely on hiding your IP address to protect you from remote attack, since attackers are easily able to scan the entire IP address space looking for vulnerable hosts. (That will change with IPv6, yes.)
Finally, it is not true that "all computers are vulnerable" -- at least, not if what you mean is "all computers are equally vulnerable". It is an unfortunate fact that the most popular operating system in the world today is also by far the most vulnerable to many sorts of attack, including spyware. Today, the spyware problem exists only on Microsoft Windows; there is nothing comparable in scale or in severity on Mac OS X, Linux, or other operating systems. --FOo 21:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I agree with what you say here. This topic on Spyware is relatively new but fascinating to me. I'm an older generation (I do mean old e.g. the Fortran & punch card generation) computer geek but have not worked professionally in this field. Spyware got my attention when I myself have observed activities from "malicious software" on my own computer; supposedly protected by a reputable Firewall (networking) software.
I hope to learn more about this problem...,,,Ariele 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Níðhöggr > Nidhogg?[edit]

I had hoped that we could settle the issue of Norse mythology names with the naming convention vote but now there is once again a request to strip an article title of diacritics and nominative ending. If you can spare the time your opinion would be valued at Talk:Níðhöggr. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Spyware spam[edit]

Heyo. I appreciate your vigilance on the Spyware article. But I'm not sure the article Mr. IP Address put up is spam. I looked at it and it actually looks like a relevant site. The only reason I chopped it before was that he'd put it up three times and has a history of trying to sell fake rolexes. I'm not really fussed if you decide to put the link back or not; the site was OK but not spectacular. Reyk 04:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The user had put up the same link on the top of lists at both Spyware and Malware. In general, putting a new external link at the top of a list is a remarkably certain sign of link-spam. Repeatedly posting the same link is, too. There are a few other "spam signs" noted on Wikipedia:Spam.
And if someone's using a site to commit fraud (selling fake Rolexes), I don't care how relevant it is ... posting it to Wikipedia is enlisting Wikipedia to connive in a criminal act, so the link has got to go. --FOo 04:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the site, and i agree with Mr. Obfusco... the weblink should be removed, or else Wikipedia would be forced into denying a Soliciting Charge. --Slayero11 21:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.188.138 (talk)

My comment[edit]

Hi Fubar, please don't move or remove my comment. There are no rules about people not being allowed to explain their vote, and anyway this is an extremely informal poll, which will not determine what happens in the policy. Policy can't be changed by majoritarianism. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was already in the middle of responding on your talk page, so I've left my comment there. --FOo 10:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi again, I would like to keep my comment where it is. I find this all rather inappropriate to be honest. A major change to the policy is being pushed by a small number of people, and the discussion has been split between locations and not advertised widely. Policy can't be changed that way, so I definitely do want my comment to remain with my vote, and in fact, I wish you wouldn't hold the poll at all, because major policy changes shouldn't be decided by polls (and won't be). SlimVirgin (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response.
First off, I agree with you that policies are not decided by polls. Policies are decided by consensus. The only purpose of holding a poll is to gauge consensus. If there exists consensus for a policy proposal, then it is a policy, and the policy page needs to be updated to reflect it.
A major reason that I put this poll up is that there were getting to be different versions of the proposal, and I wish to know whether people who supported one version were basically amenable to any, or whether some were clearly preferred over the others.
Second, I do not understand your claim that the proposal is a "major change". It does not change the sense of the rule. The rule is as it has been: Administrators in a substantive conflict with an editor are not allowed to use blocking against that editor. The proposal here is to amend the policy so that it gives better instruction -- to more clearly spell out why it's a bad idea to block someone you're in conflict with, and what the alternatives are.
Admins in a content dispute should not block. You are trying to change that. But this is the problem with the discussion: here it is split again. You should choose one venue so that everyone can see all the posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
What, exactly, is the problem with offering these explanations and help?
Third, I am concerned that your objection regarding trolls amounts to treating the fussing and wailing of trolls as more important than the integrity of Wikipedia administrators. The goal of a troll is to say whatever will cause aggravation and hurt, in order to get attention. Your claim that the proposed policy change will be used by trolls is trivially true ... because trolls will say anything.
You cannot outwit a troll by cleverly choosing policies so that they cannot be twisted and misread ... because anything can be twisted and misread. So the objection, "We cannot change this policy because it would be abused by trolls" can be applied to any change and any policy, and is not an actionable objection.
In contrast, while we can't outwit trolls, we can better equip Wikipedia administrators. We can remind people that they don't stand alone, that they can call for help when they're dealing with an obnoxious editor. We can remind people of the consensus regarding blocking people one is in conflict with -- so that they don't make that mistake and bring down the same nastiness we've just recently seen.
Lastly, I do not agree with your claim that this proposal is "being pushed by a small number of people". I created the proposal as a way to sum up what a large number of folks were expressing following a very unfortunate recent incident. Several people have now expressed support for the proposal. A few have expressed concerns, and I've tried to engage in a discussion of these concerns rather than merely a replaying of the same noises at one another.
When I last looked, more had expressed concern that had supported. But it's not being widely advertised, which it needs to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I am confused by your claim that the discussion has been "split between locations and not advertised widely". This objection seems to contradict itself: if something is discussed widely, the discussion takes place in many locations, right? And it's true that the issue of it being inappropriate to block people one is in conflict with has been discussed in many places -- e.g. Ed Poor's talk page, the Duncharris RFC, WP:AN/I, and WikiEN-L. However, that should come as no surprise, since it is an important issue -- and since there is widespread agreement that the recent unpleasantness was an egregious violation of consensus.
But the proposal to amend the blocking policy to offer explanations and suggestions? I have only seen it announced on WP:AN/I and discussed on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Since it is not a huge change, it doesn't seem necessary to spam the world about it. --FOo 11:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a major change. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. I didn't understand that your disagreement was over the distinction between a conflict among editors and an article editing conflict. To me, there isn't too much difference -- the two seem to go very closely together.

Are you claiming that administrators should be allowed to block people with whom they are engaged in other sorts of conflicts -- e.g. exchanging accusations on talk pages, or on AfD? That kind of activity was a major part of the recent ugliness, and it seems to me that editors generally believe that an administrator who's too closely involved in a conflict with another editor on any forum should not be the one to block that editor if needs be.

I still don't see any support for the troll claim. Trolls will twist anything, so we can't base our policies on whether trolls will twist them or not. --FOo 21:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Zombie-process.png[edit]

Best Wikipedia diagram ever - David Gerard 23:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"User freespeech" template[edit]

Helloo.. Saw your free speech thing and thought you might be interested in this template (which is also linked from the WikiProject talk page: {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

A link so you can preview it: {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

Hope you like, it's pretty much the same but will also automatically add you to the Wikipedians against censorship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Stopping Spam[edit]

Stopping e-mail abuse was moved after a long open comment period on :Talk, for stated reasons. You moved it back for NO stated reason. I'm undoing your effort. Elvey

Whoops! No, it wasn't. There was one mis-posted comment there -- new comments go at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. Moreover, the title "Stopping Spam" that you chose doesn't match the Wikipedia style guide regarding capitalization anyway, so it would have to be moved regardless. --FOo 20:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
How 'bout some advice? I figure there should be coverage on wikipedia of methods of fighting email spam and other forms of spam. In what article(s) do you think these should be covered? As I mentioned, I think there's a lot of overlap. For example, consider IP and URI blacklists & whitelists, reputation services, cost-based systems (hashcash, e-stamp, and bond types), content and statistical filters - all these methods can stop spam in any media.
What part(s) of the statement, "Stopping e-mail abuse was moved after a long (4Nov-26Dec) open comment period on :Talk, for stated reasons. You moved it back for NO stated reason," are you claiming isn't true? My bad about the caps; Stopping spam would be correct, I think.
Hello? -Elvey 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

In appreciation of your tireless efforts to smite vandalism and spamdalism from the Spyware article, a Barnstar.

Thank you.

Reyk 08:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Firefox anon[edit]

You pinged them for adding links to the article, when they were actually removing a link Beachy keeps adding.--SarekOfVulcan 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that! --FOo 01:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Fubar Obfusco[edit]

Regarding "Churches of Scientology are busy places" You stated that the Church in your town is not a busy place, there is hardly anyone there? is that a "Church of Scientology" or a "Mission of Scientology" or a "Dianetics Auditor Group?" What town? Terryeo 04:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

OpenBSD[edit]

I've replied (well, several replies :-) to your comment on the FAC. Although I don't totally agree with your view that the article is not technical enough, I'm interested in your opinion of my changes of structure here (I've had a couple of approving comments and I'd like to change it to the main article tonight so hopefully others will comment further before the FAC ends), and of course any further comments you have toward making the article better. NicM 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

please be careful with removing the templates![edit]

I've seen your work before, so I can only assume that at Office of Special Affairs you were just so frustrated with the {{ScientologySeries}} template that you didn't notice you were also restoring to the article heavily POV language comparing the OSA to the Gestapo and suchlike. Please be more careful -- and please calm down about the template. Right now the back and forth of people removing it and restoring it is causing so much "churn" that it would be a tailor-made time for POV-pushers to try and sneak in partisan edits, counting on people to be too busy fighting the template war to spot it. Surely that's not what we want. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! You're right, I was working through a list of the articles that the series template was deleted from, and inadvertently restored to a not-so-great version. Sorry about that. It wasn't out of "frustration" -- just a goof. --FOo 02:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Another poll[edit]

Just thought you'd like to know that another poll (this one official) is taking place toward the bottom of the NAMBLA discussion page in which users are asked (yes or no) if NAMBLA should be categorized in each of the pedophilia organizations, pederasty organizations, and LGBT organizations. Regards, Corax 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You *like* making diagrams and flowcharts?[edit]

Okay, the scientology series really needs one to explain how all the orgs, non-profits, religious centers, etc. fit together... without looking like messy spaghetti. Think you can put one together? Ronabop 07:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure! But it would be original research if we don't actually have a source of the data for it. --FOo 07:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

english[edit]

Scumware[edit]

Fubar Obfusco, you redirected Scumware to Spyware. I contest this redirect. I left a comment on Talk:Scumware; could you comment? Thanks Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 13:25Z

Over Bold[edit]

Sorry about that. Everyone just seemd to be making lots of words and I wanted some old-fashioned {{sofixit}}, but I should have done to start what I did end the end: made a new copy. In fact, I had alredy done that once before I boxed yours, but got edit conflicted three times and gave up. Mea culpa, and do you want me to make it all the way back like it was before I touched it? That seems like an obvious thing, but since I've already done my bull in a china shop routine once today...
brenneman(t)(c) 07:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, no big deal, I get why you did it. To me, it makes more sense to post multiple versions or proposals rather than to all pile on and edit a single one, so that they can be compared side by side. --FOo 08:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

spyware[edit]

hahaha yeh. Spyware sucks. - Sorry about this guy. Son of a family friend. Nice enough guy but online he turns into a real pain in the ass. Shouldn't have let him use my computer. I'm just glad he logged me out before starting his wikipedia career or I'd have some explaining to do. Reyk 07:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Awww...[edit]

Sometimes thingss are funnier when you don't spell them out. Now I can't feel all superiour at my quiet chuckle in thinking the same thing.
brenneman{T}{L} 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be funny or superior. I think it's a serious problem. --FOo 04:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I also think that it's a serious problem, but we all deal with things in different ways. I try very hard not to rise up with biting comments and sometimes succeed.
  • Last I counted Tony has said "I should be dead-minned" at least three times. This doesn't of coure count him asking for himself to be banned, or the times he'd thrown himself at ArbCom before with similar melodrama. On one of the current occasions he explicitly says "If any 6 arbitrators..." as if this is some sort of game of chicken.
  • Which, as I've observed before, almost every interaction with Tony in fact is. "I'll delete this one more time... will you restore it again?" Or "I'll restore another article for editing, will you {{tempundelete}} it again?" Never giving an inch, never backing down except when RfC-ed, and only then long enough to "t(ake) away their rope".
This isn't good for the encyclopedia, I don't care how often he's "right". Hell, almost all of us with the mop are right almost all the time, we just don't make such a damn fuss about it... err, I'm ranting aren't I. Sorry... taking it outside, sticking my head in a bucket.
brenneman{T}{L} 04:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm worried that Tony may be on the path Ed Poor trod. I really hope not. Fights suck. --FOo 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Trusted Computing Edit(s)[edit]

Hi there,

I'm concerned that you might think I'm trying to "whitewash" the concerns about TC away. That's certainly not my intention, and I think it is right that concerns are accurately described. However, I really don't believe the issues raised in the section I edited are technically justified; the examples given are somewhat contrived, and might be better expressed. A lot of Trusted Computing technology is currently undefined, or defined by marketing blurbs and vapourware, but the debate is welcome! --Boxflux 09:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on Talk:Trusted computing StephenHildrey 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

About that.[edit]

"Please do not introduce errors into articles such as Evolution and Age of the Earth. For instance, the para you introduced into our Evolution article makes the erroneous assumption that population growth is constant. We know that this is not even the case during recorded history! We know, for example, that birthrates change within and amongst populations; and that events such as plagues and wars cause sharp population declines. --FOo 09:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)"

I would like to refute your claiming that I introduced error into the wikipedia. First, evolution. I did not add any assumption that population growth was constant. I was just pointing out the lunacy in people believing that humans have been around for millions of years when even if the growth rate was horrendously low, their would still be billions more people on earth. In my calculations I only used very low rates. If I had used the 1.4% which is the current growth rate, the amount of people after all of those millions of years would be ASTRONOMICAL (something like 10^1000 of just humans). It doesn't make sense for humans to have been around for millions of years, so if anything, the entire article on evolution is error.

On the age of the earth, the constant half-life of the earth's magnetic field is irrefutable. If the earth truly has been around for 4.55 billion years, the magnetic field would be so high that the earth wouldn't be able to handle it.

Evolution and the age of the earth are all THEORIES, not LAWS, so there should be all facts presented from both sides.Asemoasyourmom 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see this reference on population growth and this one on Earth magnetism. You are quoting common misconceptions on these matters. These are subtle errors -- not so blatant as "the Earth is flat" ... more along the lines of believing that the eye's lens is its primary focusing element (in fact, it's the cornea). --FOo 04:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
History of spamming
Reynaldo Gianecchini
Barracuda Networks
Criterium
Postcardware
GFI Software
Zombie computer
Operation Freakout
Spamd
Thousand Islands - Frontenac Arch
Baitware
Malware scanner
Flyposting
Greenware
Mary Sue Hubbard
Shovelware
Télérama
Ransomware
Sepulchre
Cleanup
Morrison-Williams
CoolWebSearch
Ruby on Rails
Merge
Comparison of e-mail clients
Shithead (card game)
Official gold reserves
Add Sources
Hotbar
Webmail
George Christian
Wikify
Credit card fraud
Wedgie
Moralityware
Expand
Fudge-A-Mania
Programming language dialect
Internet Information Services

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration - Terryeo[edit]

Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 20:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Gold chart[edit]

Hi, I don't offhand but I can easily make one. I will do so tomorrow or later, at the moment I'm busy. There's a longer chart at "Gold as an investment" taken from Kitco.com under a nonfree, restrictive license that never should have been put up. Gold price data is readily available and there is no need to rely on outside sources for charts. I can make a chart later going back pretty much through all of American history, but certainly a 50 year chart showing the spike in price during the '70s would be great. NTK 05:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made several new charts, some of which I have inserted into various articles, here they are.
Image:LBMA Au AM USD 2001-06042006.png
Image:Au monthly price USD 1968-2006.png
Image:Au annual average USD price 1793-2005.png
Image:Ag annual average USD price 1792-2005.png

NTK 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism[edit]

Hi, colleague. FYI, I have reverted your revert at A-S back to the stable and factually correct wording. That was User:Liquid Love's first and only edit. If you wish, we can discuss this at the article's talk page. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

English spelling: fool proof?[edit]

Hello, on Dutch Wikipedia there has been some discussion regarding proper English spelling of the word fool(-)proof. To resolve this issue, we require the opinion of an educated native English speaker. Could you please tell me which of the following variants of fool(-)proof you would consider proper, trusting only on your own intuitive, immediate 'feeling':

'Mary-Elizabeth nevertheless managed to destroy the fool proof dishwasher, after melting her foolproof iron and sinking her son's fool-proof boat.'

If you have an opinion about this at all, that is: perhaps such variants all feel acceptable to you. And what about bullet(-)proof, full(-)scale, hawk(-)nosed, brand(-)new, even(-)handed, fail(-)safe? Does the same apply to all? Thank you very much for your co-operation, you could reply here or on my User Talk page. Cerberus™ 01:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your revert to my edits in Scientology[edit]

You wrote that my edits in Scientology were bogus. I pointed out that "Critics claim...XYS" is a weasel word which it is. If you are going to state that "critics claim" something then you need to either 1) state which critics stated it where and when or 2) cite another party that says "critics state...XYZ". All I did was add "citation needed" text on things where there is no citation. I would appreciate it if you would 1) provide the requested citations to back up the claim, 2) reword the text so it doesn't use weasel words, or at least 3) allow me to insert the "citation needed" claim. I am a long time critic of Scientology, but even I realize just how grossly biased these articles sound when they have so many unsourced claims using "weasel words". I hope you can help me improve the article on Scientology rather than just reverting my clearly explained edits. Thanks. Vivaldi 04:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I also notice you reverted back to where it now says "Quiet Births" instead of "Silent Births". The most common term for the process is called "Silent Birth" as you can easily check by using Google, Yahoo Search, or Lexis/Nexis. Something like 67,000 pages mention "Silent Birth"&"Scientology" whereas less than 300 contain "Quiet Birth"&"Scientology". I have explained my edits on the talk page for Scientology and I wish you would make your comments there to justify why we should use "Quiet Births". Vivaldi 04:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ack! I was not trying to revert you. I was trying to revert 200.126.205.100, who did introduce "bogus warnings", here. Someone else already got to it, and while I was bouncing from revision to revision, you made the diffs which I inadvertently reverted. :( ---FOo 05:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay. That makes sense now. I know it often gets confusing when more than one person is editing the article at one time. (especially on real long articles) I also reverted those edits that you were trying to get rid of before I added a couple of [citation needed] tags. Unfortunately, you stepped in the middle and missed my revert. It's no big deal. I just commented here to cover my bases and explain my reasonings, because I didn't understand what you were doing, and I thought you might've needed an explanation of my intentions. Take care. Vivaldi 08:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding spyware edits[edit]

Fubar, you removed my edit regarding WinPatrol, et al, as being misleading advertising. I don't represent WinPatrol nor am I associated with it in any way.

The existing anti-spyware section makes no reference to these types of programs. There may be others, WinPatrol just happens to be one that I have experience with.

The chief benefit of these types of programs is their "zero day" nature... they do not rely on the download of signature files after a certain "n" of users have had, and reported a problem.

At any rate, these tools are legitimate software and have proven themselves to be reliable tools developed with reputable intentions. I believe you are wrong to simply delete references to them, they are no less legitimate or useful than any of the other programs specifically referenced in the wiki. I am curious as to why you feel some of the tools deserve specific mention, while others of equal utility and legitimacy, you delete. If you felt that the comparative reference to the other programs was too strongly worded, it would have been a simple matter to edit that sentence and not delete the entire entry.

Regards

My apologies. I hope that you understand that the Spyware article has suffered tremendously from spam attacks. Because this is a subject about which a great deal of nonsense and lies are spoken, I think we're reasonably suspicious of a contributor whose first ever edit is to add a seeming promotion for a new anti-spyware product.
All in all, it's almost always a bad thing when someone adds a reference to a product that gives it as the only example of something promoted as obviously desirable. I think you can see why this comes across as promotional, and even spammy, in nature.
It's unfortunate that Wikipedia has been so heavily abused by spammers. If what you're saying is true -- and I have no data to refute it -- then my apologies for summarily reverting the addition. Please go ahead and restore it. Anything you can to do to integrate it with the rest of the section, especially in a way which seems less promotional, would be a great thing for the article. --FOo 02:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback FOo; What I did is actually edit a paragraph later in the section more in keeping with your comments above about other SW having the same capability. There was a paragraph that described how all anti-spyware SW require signature updates and felt that would be a better place to introduce the notion of "heuristic" or non-pattern matching approaches to malware detection. Mroesler 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:93 and other concerns[edit]

Thanks for taking the time back in March to counsel User:Ashami about {{93}} and other matters. Perhaps that will make it easier to accept my 'noticing' at least one specific instance of inappropriateness. I worry, because the last person I asked to step back and consider, did pause for about 5 hours, then went on to include links to their site in about 40 more pages. (perhaps that was research time?) Shenme 05:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

ADL article[edit]

I note your edit summary on the ADL article: "The source is a scurrilous "pro-white" racist organization." I admire your sense of understatement. They are neo-Nazis. -- Cecropia 07:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing[edit]

I don't do barstars, but if I did I'd give you one: You're a good egg. this isn't promted by anything in particular, just that I reckon we don't tell each other stuff like that often enough. - brenneman{L} 08:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Irgendwer RfC[edit]

I've filed a request request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 04:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I basically agree with your discussion of Irgendwer's conduct. However, I note that in this edit, Irgendwer is not advising me not to "throw fits", as you describe in the RFC. Rather, he paraphrases and responds to my assertion (in an edit summary) that the word "political" fits; that is, my assertion that the word is fitting. --FOo 05:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard//Incidents Brian J. Bruns (Brian Bruns)[edit]

I responded to your opinions at ANI about Brian J. Bruns. Look at the court dox. :) --Chakabuh 08:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser request[edit]

You made a request on Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. More information is needed before this can be carried out, could you please reply on the request page. Thanks - the wub "?!" 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How-to info on plants...[edit]

Thanks for being gentle on the Tomato thing (i.e.: changing the heading rather than the content). If you're interested in moving how-to information from plant articles to a more appropriate place, please do it through b:A Wikimanual of Gardening... if you dump things there, I'll sort them out on the WB end. SB Johnny 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer article. British spelling v. American spelling[edit]

Hi Fubar. Unless I've made some mistake here, what has happened is I reverted a "correction" of the word practise into practice. The article is written in British English - as such the word practise is a verb. Correcting it into practice puts it into an incorrect usage - either as British English, or as an American English spelling in a British English article. I'm popping it back into practise. If you feel I've made a mistake, please let me know. Cheers. SilkTork 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad. The word is a noun. Practice would be the correct spelling. I've been having a bit of a blonde moment here. SilkTork 22:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your ANI post[edit]

I've responded on the page. --Gurubrahma 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Spyware[edit]

I reverted that edit to Spyware here because I thought it had a point of view. Not everyone thinks Kazaa is desirable. Maybe it should be made more specific to show that spyware piggybacks on software that is only considered to be desirable, which includes Kazaa.

Do you think that part should stay the same or be change or removed? --Sbluen 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's true that not everyone considers Kazaa to be desirable. I, for one, have no use for it. However, the user who is installing Kazaa (and, unknowingly, installing spyware) presumably does think it is desirable. Otherwise they would not be installing it. Perhaps "desired" would be more to the point -- the user wants to have Kazaa itself, but does not realize that it comes with spyware. --FOo 06:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

...on being the latest addition to Daniel Brandt's Hit List! I also hope that one day I will integrate fully into the wiki-hivemind and be worthy of mention there myself. While I normally find personal attacks distasteful, I'd be willing to go the extra mile and insult him profusely (not an especially difficult goal to achieve) if that's what it takes to be included in what has become a Wikipedia Hall of Fame :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 19:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. Two wrongs don't make a right. I have no interest in harassing a harasser. Eventually these fools will go over the line and all end up in jail for breaking into someone's computer or something. Until then, meh. --FOo 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like you're probably a better person than I am; mostly I just wanted to let you know your personal info had been published on Brandt's website. Happy editing. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Rocker[edit]

Greeting Fellow Rocker,

I have revamped the userbox for SRC. You can view it at: [1]. If you add this to your user page, your user page will be placed in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Simon's Rock College of Bard. For instructions on how to add this userbox to your user page and more information see WP:Userboxes.

Share and enjoy, GabrielF 23:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sorry if I made a mistake in assuming you went to Simon's Rock - I'm about 80% certain that I'm right. GabrielF 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Prayer good article nomination[edit]

I am here to say that I very recently failed the article Prayer. I left comments on the talk page. As you are the nominator, I thought it would be a good idea to tell you. Some P. Erson 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Spyware on FAR[edit]

Per mine and other's comments on that talk page, and your own confessions that you have not had the time to devote to the article that you once did, I have listed Spyware at FAR.

I believe that's best ... it seems there was a lot of work done on that article but unfortunately, in the fifteen months since it was promoted a lot of deprecatory edits were made.

It can be saved, ultimately, I think. Daniel Case 05:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Confessions"? Nice way of putting it. Bozos screwed up an article and it's my fault? :) Thanks for the notice but I doubt I'll have time or motivation to fix it. Please do go ahead if you like. --FOo 06:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I have fixed up the article now (more than I thought I would have been able to do), but I still think it needed review, so I listed it again (it was pulled the first time because apparently you're supposed to wait a week after any Main Page turn to put it on FAR. So I gave it a good copyedit and found some sources it was missing. But it still needs some). Daniel Case 18:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"specific complaints"[edit]

If you look at the history of Scientology Justice, you'll see I made very specific complaints but then was told it was misusing the "citation needed" tag. So, apparently I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Whose advice should I ignore - yours or Anteaus Feldspar's? Highfructosecornsyrup 05:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What I see is that someone scrawled a bunch of extraneous "citation needed" tags all over the article in an apparent effort to make it unreadable. Are you taking credit for this act of vandalism? --FOo 05:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea it was vandalism. Can you point me to a page in policy that says it is? I thought the 'citation needed' tag was for important statements that lacked citations. Everything I tagged was, IMHO, serious enough claims that they deserve direct sourcing. Why do you think the tags make it "unreadable"? Why do you think it's not more important to call attention to the article's serious bias problem, and thus improve it? Highfructosecornsyrup 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you would be better served to edit constructively. If you think there need to be more sources, spend some time finding those sources instead of scrawling on the article.
Also, I do not believe that you are as new to Wikipedia as your user contributions page suggests. So please do not play the newbie here. I strongly suspect that you are a sock puppet of one of the various people who have been banned for vandalism and persistent disruption of Scientology-related articles. --FOo 05:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard that joke already. I couldn't care less what you "suspect". Please be civil and leave your insulting and paranoid accusations out of it. And thanks for ignoring my sincere questions above. Highfructosecornsyrup 06:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

DNSBL[edit]

Hi. I have reverted your changes to the DNSBL article because we are not supposed to censor articles on wikipedia. I have added a section on the talk page outlining the research I have done on the term. Before changing the definition, let's discuss this more. Wrs1864 05:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

System's Twilight[edit]

System's Twilight has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant concerns. An example of notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (websites). If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Prod template removed. The topic seems to me to be appropriate to Wikipedia, although the article is indeed short at the moment. Please feel free to expand it if you like. --FOo 05:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check[edit]

Please check this: [[2]]. I see here you have authority to remove disputes. [[3]]

Nope, it's nobody's business to remove serious disputes. I was just removing an irrelevant flame. Talk pages are for the discussion of the improvement of the article ... not for flaming one another. --FOo 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ivory Coast move[edit]

Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#...Requested_move. —  AjaxSmack  08:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Language in Beer[edit]

Hi

The article is in British English already. For consistency the whole article should be in British English. I'll put a note on the discussion page. The guideline is here: [4]. Regards. SilkTork 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock of banned editor?[edit]

Hi. Feel free to be more explicit about which banned editor you think BabyDweezil might be a sock of. It's up to you, of course, but have you considered activating your wiki e-mail..? Best, Bishonen | talk 13:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Please c.c. me on your findings...I as well am eager to see the fiend apprehended! BabyDweezil 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro to Evo[edit]

The Introduction to Evolution Article was intended to be a simplified version of the main entry. I have been patiently waiting for others to come along and edit. Mostly we get Creationist (which apparently suffer from spelling disabilities). Thanks. Feel free to revisit and streamline some more. I think we have a handle on the content; but, there is no doubt a significant amount jargon that could be edited away. Frankly, I think ours should be the main entry with a link to the current Evolution Article, followed by the disclaimer (for those with PhD’s in Evolutionary Biology). Ah but if I get started on that ....

Thanks again. --Random Replicator 16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary "PA"[edit]

Hi. Calling crap material "crap" is hardly a PA. By crap, I mean highly POV, non-RS material, you know . . . crap. No offense meant here (or there). --Justanother 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just realized that this might not even have been directed at me. Was it directed at me? If so, do you still think I committed a WP:PA? Would you please tell me exactly what the PA was? Thanks --Justanother 04:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Your statement sums up exactly how I feel about COI in general, people with a possible COI are not necessarily people with a COI. It's only when they start to go against the consensus that the possible COI becomes more probable. I appreciate your time, and your excellent comment FOo. Anynobody 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see a conflict of interest here as opposed to just a certain amount of obnoxious behavior and occasional bias. Can you clarify why this is actually a case of conflict of interest rather than just ordinary rulebreakage? --FOo 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a long complicated affair that I can best sum up by going chronologically backwards. He's threatened to nominate Barbara Schwarz as an AfD, ignoring the previous three AfD votes Talk:Barbara Schwarz#-- Previous AFDs --. When it became clear that the subject's actions were heavily "influenced" by and thus inseparable from the general subject of Scientology, he started the AfD talk. He wouldn't discuss stopping even after other editors made very valid points why a 4th AfD was a mistake. This is what prompted me to request a RfC. Prior to that his edits were mostly about disassociating the subject with Scientology, which I perceived as a possible COI, since he spends a majority of time editing Scientology articles. Just prior to this, another editor set up an article on the WP:BLPN citing this article (Schwarz) as a violation. There I made the case that three editors were most likely being affected by COI for three different reasons. Justanother was one, his COI being to save the CoS from embarrassment. The second is an editor who has been trying to have the article deleted as a favor to Ms. Schwarz, and the third started editing to harass an editor already working on the page. That BLPN notice went straight to the archives after a fairly long time on the board. None of the three main supporters even seemed to notice. I don't know how much time you plan to commit to this, but if you want to know more I can get you a link to it. Anynobody 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say, the BLPN notice I mentioned was also the fourth third one of those too. Anynobody 08:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review the rules in each section and at the bottom - Thanks[edit]

Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. --Justanother 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Censorship on Scientology pages[edit]

FOO, you are censoring the Scientology pages by taking out valid links to documents. Instead you put in links to private, non-RS, anti-Scientology hate pages whose one and only purpose is to ostracize individuals Scientologists. Considering the other stuff you write on your "user page" this behavior is quite bigotted. What personal axe to grind you have with Scientologists? COFS 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my considered conclusion, after reviewing your edits and your conduct here, that you are not a good-faith contributor to the Wikipedia project. As such, there is nothing I have to say to you. --FOo 05:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:DE by User:Fubar Obfusco[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:DE by User:Fubar Obfusco --Justanother 11:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your spam diagrams.[edit]

I run a small record label and would like to use diagrams like your "circle of spam" on the b-sides of my 12" vinyl records. I would like to request a few diagrams, and I am able to compensate you for the work. Please contact me if you are interested - johnquincyaddingmachine[at]yahoo[dot]com 808-PICNIC 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Per-Arne Berglie[edit]

Just so you know, if an entire article is a blatant copyright infringement and there are no clean versions to revert to, you can just tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-copyvio}} rather than listing it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Thanks! --Spike Wilbury 03:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondary antisemitism[edit]

Regarding your note here: I've included two more sources for the assertions regarding Globke and Adenauer. Please let me know if those are sufficient. —AldeBaer (c) 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. --FOo 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


your recent efforts improving the intelligent design page[edit]

Hi, FOo, thanks fro your efforts. I followed the debate on the talk page but kept silent. Regarding Filll, in his July 2 post, he sounds pretty reasonable. But have a look at his 00:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC) entry on talk:A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism. Northfox 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

ID FAR[edit]

As you know ID is a complex and controversial topic. Progress there is constantly hampered by having to deal with the less than honest claims of ID pov pushers and those who are sufficiently poorly read on the topic to take their claims at face value. Addressing their concerns has been a daily struggle, and have resulted in most of the issues that you've raised for delisting. I think the project would be better served were you to make a real effort to participate at the article more and not rush off to challenge its FA status after just a few days. You have a lot to offer the article I'm sure and any resistance there can be attributed to 1) hard-learned experience (ala the footnote issue), 2) you needing to show that you know your chops on the topic with the regular contributors. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

flat earth theory[edit]

Well, "Flat earth" really is a theory. It is just a very poorly supported theory. be well Gregbard 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't a theory. "Theory" doesn't mean "guess". --FOo 05:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not just a guess. One can go out into a field, measure it scientifically, and find a flat field. One can then use those facts as the basis of a theory (a weak one) that the whole earth is flat. This would be a terrible theory, but a theory nonetheless. Think of a theory as a set of sentences. The goal is for them all to be consistent. Flat earthers just don't choose to add all the contradicting evidence to their set. That way they have a weakly supported theory. I don't object to the edit at all. Gregbard 12:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It could be a theory, if its supporters actually did the scientific work necessary and arrived at it as a conclusion. But since they don't, it isn't. Flat-earthers find their support not in scientific work, but in armchair speculation and religious sources.
A theory isn't a theory just because it's testable, but because it's tested. --FOo 00:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You are talking about scientific theories specifically, which Flat Earth Theory certainly is not. It is however a non-empirical theory.-Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SPEWS: Don't get into an edit war[edit]

I reported Bloggerhead for violating 3RR. By the way, if he is who I think he is in real life, he has always claimed to be the Shaw customer he is talking about. Kww 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, so we have WP:COI too. Yay! As with the Scientologists, we see that someone who'll abuse one online medium will abuse others, too. --FOo 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris Btalk 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This image is not an original screenshot created by a Wikipedia contributor. Rather, it is an image created by Ben Edelman, who released it to me under the terms of the GFDL. As such, it is licensed to us under the GFDL and is not a "fair use image" under Wikipedia's terms. --FOo 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the image was licensed as non-free content with {{Non-free software screenshot}} and {{Non-free web screenshot}}. Both those tags are used for non-free images. Thanks, -- Chris Btalk 06:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No, actually, it wasn't. This was one of a few images taken from Ben Edelman's Web site with his permission. He created the image and licensed it to us. The notion that screenshots are "non-free images" is not established; in this case, since it was created by a specific non-Wikipedian who has granted us permission to use it under specific license terms (GFDL) we are in any case bound to those specific terms. He may have created it under fair use, but we use it under license from him. --FOo 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not doubting that this particular screenshot is not free, you have explicitly stated it is under GDFL. However the license tags you used, namely {{Non-free software screenshot}} and {{Non-free web screenshot}}, are used only for non-free content and automatically places the image into Category:All non-free media. Images in this category which lack a fair use rationale are tagged as such. -- Chris Btalk 11:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, gotcha. I did not place those templates on that image page; another contributor did. I have removed them since your notice. --FOo 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada[edit]

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please specify![edit]

Hello Fubar, If you just put in the "Needs work" tag, you're not really helping very much. Kindly go to the talk page and say what needs to be done, and I'll work on it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging an article for cleanup is not an indictment of the work already done on it. In the case I believe you're talking about, it was pretty obvious though: the article was not in Wikipedia format. --FOo (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page can't be edited[edit]

Please excuse my editing here, but currently your talk page can not be edited. Apparently, one of the URLs on it has now been blacklisted. (It is in the top comment left, I can't spell it out here because, well, it is blacklisted.)

My purpose in trying to edit your talk page was to ask you to review my actions on with regard to Open mail relay and User:Deananderson and to wikipedia policy. I have been away from editing here for a while and I want to make sure I'm not out of line. Thanks.

Please feel free to delete this text at any time, and/or move it to your talk page. Wrs1864 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look. --FOo (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RfD request[edit]

I saw your name at the Malware article. The RfD Nimp.org → Shock site could used some expert opinions that help characterize Nimp.org and perhaps a likely redirect target. If you have some time, please consider helping out. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the site. Sounds obnoxious though. --FOo (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Skepticism[edit]

You correctly hit the best criticism of parapsychology. There are some really innovative things going on, but overall they have been at it for a little over a hundred years, and they have not changed the world. The other really valid criticism in my view is the intrinsic unlikelihood of the phenomena. Unfortunately, most skepticism has been incredible utter rubbish, sneering. They sit there and if they can imagine any way whatsoever where something could have gone wrong in the experiment, they say "case closed." It's an absolutely horrible situation, and is really summed up in the reaction to Sheldrake's book (see article and search for "burning"). The public doesn't listen to the skeptics, and those in the know stop listening to the skeptics after a while, because they find that the skeptics aren't really engaging the issues (and are highly unpleasant). This, even though the skeptics might be right, or might have something to say. The skeptics don't read the research they criticize. It's is absolutely unbelievable to anyone who hasn't seen it for themselves. The skeptics have chosen a media campaign over reasoned dialogue. This has failed to convince the public in part because it is so shrill. There is some good parapsychological research out there. Perhaps if skeptics weren't so dismissive we'd get to the bottom of the issues. If we did, there is a chance there might be something in it, and the skeptics don't want that to be true. That's for a couple of reasons: one, they don't want to go back to having society ruled by religion, which is a valid fear. Second, Dave Souza is wrong: if parapsychology is true it may not be pleasant, and it would almost certainly not be all sweetness and light. But one last thing: the skeptical argument that "if there were anything to it everyone would jump on the band wagon" is absolutely untrue- and the skeptics themselves are the reason for that. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's something else going on, though, behind the shrillness of that subset of skeptics. It isn't merely that they dismiss the subject matter. They don't stop by saying that it is not science. They also say what they do think it is, which varies: commercial fraud, or credulous faith, or insane delusion. And they have some basis for those claims, since some psychic claimants are documented to be frauds or mentally ill.
So the argument of someone like Martin Gardner or James Randi is not just, "This parapsychology stuff is not science." It is, rather, "This parapsychology stuff looks so much like stage-magic, carnival trickery, or con games -- or schizophrenia, folk religion, trendy fads, or storefront palm-reading -- that before we consider whether it is science, we first must eliminate the more likely possibilities that it is fraud or madness."
It isn't that they don't think Sheldrake is a Galileo or a Darwin. It's that they see him as so close to an Uri Geller, a Deepak Chopra, a James Redfield, or a Miss Cleo that the comparison to science simply doesn't enter serious consideration.
I imagine this must be intensely frustrating and aggravating to a person who thinks of themselves as a serious researcher. But it isn't clear to me that this means the Gardnerian skeptics are operating in bad faith. If they were trying to do philosophy of science, they'd be doing a terrible job of it -- but they aren't, because they are unconvinced that science enters into it. --FOo (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, a lot of it, at least, is bunk- any observer with any sense comes to that conclusion. But the funny thing is, Randi specifically made a point of saying parapsychology is science. I was amazed he said that, and didn't take it back. But he did, and even other CSICOP members have said similar things, like Richard Wiseman saying that Remote viewing is proven to the standards of other sciences.
In the second paragraph, you're mixing up psychic with parapsychology. They say that about psychic stuff, not about parapsychology. That is agreed upon between skeptics and parapsychologists. Parapsychologists and skeptics agree that most of what goes on is commercial fraud, credulous faith, insane delusion. In the third paragraph, you basically say that skeptics don't distinguish, which is often true. Yes, sometimes skeptics don't think science enters into it- but by their refusal to read the research, they reduce the whole debate to rhetoric.
The funny thing is that skeptics are not operating in bad faith. They operate in good faith, and people like Randi have done a lot of good. They belong in society, sort of like an immune system. Parapsychology also has a long history of debunking, and it agrees more with the skeptics than you'd think.
One major problem, is that skeptics speak in the name of science. And if they are going to do that, they should do it in a way which accords with the philosophy of science: if they debunk, they should do more than cast doubt, and if they comment, they should be up on the research, and they should not make emotional arguments. They should not make positive claims without proof. For them, scientific thinking seems to enter into it only peripherally, yet they apply their rhetoric to those who are speaking the language of science, or at least believe they are.
So what comes out of this is not hatred but disgust. Parapsychology needs skeptics, and there aren't any around. They don't talk the same language. Isn't Gardner the one who doesn't like parapsychology on religious grounds? Where are the cool calm heads who actually do the necessary study, and write the analysis? They don't exist- except in a few isolated cases like some of Hyman's work. Why? Because they consider the intrinsic probability to be so low that doing their homework frustrates them. That's the basic problem IMHO: they want to criticize, but have no real interest. Thus, they don't do the research, and they feel justified in not doing it because the phenomena are so unlikely. When they say that they are not closed-minded that is sometimes true, but it's the same difference in terms of their critiques. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 02:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

I don't know how to give them yet, so I just wanted to say that removing the trash talk from Max Hardcore's talk page was a really good decision, IMO. Seeing someone say BLP spills over to these pages is not only informative, but makes sense as well. Great call. XF Law talk at me 06:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another non-WIkimedia reuse of the zombie botnet diagram[edit]

I found Microsoft's recent "Global Anti-Piracy Day" announcement somewhat tasteless and offensive given the actual robbery and murder at sea recently in the news ... so I wrote this and put your image on it here. Cheers :-) - David Gerard (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. --FOo (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A discussion that you might be interested in[edit]

Uncle G (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration[edit]

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see only one mention on those pages, regarding a comment I posted in March *2005* regarding sock puppetry by an anonymous contributor. So, not exactly worried. --FOo (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal[edit]

Can you help me make this work: Wikipedia:Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide[edit]

I really like your move proposal on Communist genocide. This debate has been quite contentious, for a variety of reasons, some of which I don't fully understand. But in any case, your renaming idea disarms the vast majority of those objections, while still easily being true to the sources that have been added to the article. I said as much on the AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks[edit]

Sorry, I meant to remove the irrelevant post by the IP, which I see you responded to as being off topic. Reywas92Talk 03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Most succint evolution defense I've heard...kudos[edit]

I was looking through the talk page archives for evolution (because I love seeing the debates..I guess I'm a sucker for mental pain or something) and I just wanted to say that your edit under the heading "NPOV disputed" in Archive 1 that begins "theories of evolution, that is," is one of the best I've seen at answering the "fact vs. theory" and the "ongoing scientific debate about evolution" canards that you hear over and over from creationists. I know you wrote that like 7 years ago, but I wanted to give you a pat on the back nonetheless SuperAtheist (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar![edit]

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For this edit on Moose. Tim Song (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists[edit]

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Windows ActiveX security warning (malware).png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Windows ActiveX security warning (malware).png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Better description page request for File:Windows ActiveX security warning (malware).png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Windows ActiveX security warning (malware).png but the image description page, especially its fair-use rationale is in desperate need of improvements. Please verify to ensure that you have included all necessary descriptions about what the image is and what it represents. Please ensure that image description contain no misrepresentation of what the image shows, have no defunct hyperlinks and has a well-written fair-use rationale.

The following resources might help you fix the problem:

Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Alwaysupdate-adware-winspy.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate at Stalking Cat[edit]

Hello, I'm Just Tidying Up. I'm commenting because, at some point in the past, you contributed to the Stalking Cat article or talk page. I recently performed a major rewrite of Stalking Cat, and I am interested to increase further expansion and improvement of the article, with other editors. If you are interested in this topic, please join us at Talk:Stalking_Cat#Major_rewrite. Thank you. Just Tidying Up (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)