Jump to content

User talk:Tqbf: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 3: Line 3:


==Civility==
==Civility==
I agree. You are rude and immature.
I agree. You are rude, mis-informed and immature. Stick to your area of expertise--security and get out of editing.


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 [[WP:CIVIL|civility]]. Another is [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]]. Some of your recent comments towards me could possibly be considered as uncivil,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/StankDawg&diff=prev&oldid=157654017] Could I therefore please encourage you to try and adopt a better standard of behavior? Thanks, --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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 [[WP:CIVIL|civility]]. Another is [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]]. Some of your recent comments towards me could possibly be considered as uncivil,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/StankDawg&diff=prev&oldid=157654017] Could I therefore please encourage you to try and adopt a better standard of behavior? Thanks, --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:53, 17 November 2007

Hi. I'm Thomas Ptacek. I'm new here. I specialize in security. I think I'm a deletionist. tqbf 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I agree. You are rude, mis-informed and immature. Stick to your area of expertise--security and get out of editing.

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, --Elonka 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]

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? --Elonka 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.  :/ --Elonka 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]

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]