User talk:User9669

Archive 2004-2005 Archive 2006 Archive 2007 Archive 2008 Archive 2009 Archive 2010 Archive 2011 Current 2012

why

in your response to me on reference desk:computing spider, you said it was kids. i was just wondering why you think it was kids. it would be great if you could get back to me on that. thanks, Jake1993811 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited down a reference to "script kiddies". They are called script kiddies because they are mostly teenagers who are angry about not being on the football team or not getting to date the hot chick in school (or not getting to date anyone at all) or failing their organic chemistry test or whatever. Teenagers tend to have an immature reaction to disappointment. They react by attacking someone else completely unrelated. The general psychiatric point of view is that they feel really small so they attack something they know they can beat to feel bigger (this continues in immature adults with actions such as driving a big car and cutting people off just to feel bigger). So - why are they "script" kiddies? They don't have the knowledge (or education) to do much. So, they download scripts from others. They don't know how the scripts work, but they know what the scripts do. They download a script that posts something to every page on Wikipedia. they use the script to add "I love Avril Lavigne" to every Wikipedia article. Somehow, that makes up for getting turned down for a date. Yes - it is very possible that the person is technically an adult. Mentally, the person is a kid. -- kainaw™ 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1: if a pro wrote the script, why didn't it spoof the user-agent header? 2: if your saying all that to make me mad, i didn't say i disagreed with you. nor do i necessarily disagree with what you said here. so it doesn't make me mad. 3: your very funny. Jake1993811 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Originally, there was no need to spoof the user-agent header. So, some ass wrote a script to spam Wikipedia and anyone who wanted could download it and run it. Of course, it is easy for someone to write a script that spoofs the user-agent header, but it turns out that the people who are putting out scripts to spam Wikipedia just decided not to do so. I don't know why. I wasn't saying this to anger you in any way. My original comment (in the thread) was just to explain why Wikipedia implemented that "feature". In here, I was just explaining I used "kids" instead of "script-kiddies" because I felt someone might take offense to "script-kiddies". I think it is funny. I try to be funny. But, humor is subjective. Most people don't think I'm funny. They think I'm just an asshole. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Kainaw, thanks for your help at the Computing ref desk. I'm at a time when I'm unclear about where I'm heading, and it's great to get advice from people who have been there. Is your PhD thesis available online? I'd be curious to read it. Regards, IBE (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My best suggestion is to talk to your committee. It is your responsibility to talk to them. It is not their responsibility to talk to you. That's the mistake I made. I didn't talk to my committee for the first two years. I kept running into problems. As for my thesis, I'm still working on getting it published. Then, depending on who publishes it, it may or may not be online. My survey paper was published, but it is not available online because it was published as a chapter in a textbook. If it had been in a journal, it would likely be available. As for the topic, my thesis is on using log files from search engines to predict future usage of the search engine. Then, expected resources can be preloaded and the users can shave a few seconds off every search. For some people, that can add up to a significant time savings. For others, it is not noticeable at all. So, my thesis isn't anything spectacular. -- kainaw™ 14:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated - I've taken your advice. Good luck with getting the thesis published - it may not be spectacular to you, but it sounds good all the same to me, fwiw. IBE (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Jon Driver

Hi, in view of your previous involvement, you may wish to comment on the discussion at Talk:Jon Driver#Request. TerriersFan (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  BarkingFish  17:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to policy, I cannot edit Wikipedia until my legal issue with WMF is resolved. So, I cannot edit the ANI. This is not a "threat". I am legally requesting that my donations be returned because I very strongly oppose my hard-earned money to be used as a political baby toy for Jimbo's personal interests. -- kainaw™ 18:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

While I generally sympathize, and agree that this blackout thing has the risk of seriously damaging wikipedia's credibility, I think you should retract your on-screen legal threat, and take it offline, maybe in direct correspondence with Jimbo. He's the face of wikipedia, and he should realize the risk he's taking by doing this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would, but according to WP:NLT and the WMF, I cannot edit anything except my talk page to directly respond to other editors. That "threat" is not on my talk page. I'm rather surprised that the WMF hasn't permanently blocked my account already. -- kainaw™ 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. You aren't blocked yet. If you wanted to retract, you could. Don't wikilawyer around removing it by saying you aren't allowed to. --Onorem♠Dil 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk to the WMF if you do not like their policies. It even states on WP:NLT that users cannot edit Wikipedia until the legal problem is closed. It is not closed. -- kainaw™ 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you requesting to be blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am purposely obeying what I've been told. I was told that I cannot edit Wikipedia with the exception of responses here, so that is all I am doing. I feel that disobeying that request will certainly make it harder to continue pressing for a return of my donations to the WMF. -- kainaw™ 18:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the deal. Either a legal threat exists, and that legal threat precludes your editing pages beyond your user talk page, or no legal threat exists and you're free to amend or withdraw any comments being construed as such elsewhere on the project. If it's the first case, then I'm going to go ahead and block you indefinitely - in this way your status is clear. If it's not, then could you please retract your comments about litigation? You should note, however, that some of your requests (such as revocation of contributions) are flat impossible. The others (refund of donations) will not be helped by continued grandstanding and threats. If you have a serious inquiry, you need to transmit it appropriately to the foundation through their legal advisor. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously guys. Take a deep breath, do something nice tomorrow, and everything will be fine... -- Luk ^talk 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What I would most prefer is that the comment be replaced with something along the lines of "legal issue with the WMF removed." I could really care less who does it. But, I truly feel that the WMF wants me to edit Wikipedia just to make it very easy for them to easily stop communicating with me instead of simply bouncing me from one phone number to another. Being blocked by admins here is neither here nor there. As I have been effectively kicked out of the Wikipedia community because I disagree with using Wikipedia as a political toy, there is no need to edit Wikipedia. I would like to replace my user page with a statement that this account was active, but was blocked due to a disagreement with this blockout, but (again) I do not want to have such a tiny edit be used by the WMF to refuse to continue talking to me. -- kainaw™ 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So...you don't want to edit another page to retract your threat because you feel that if you do, it will make it more difficult going through with your threat. OK. Makes perfect sense. Don't say you would remove it if you were allowed to when you have no desire to remove it. --Onorem♠Dil 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the legal threat on Jimbo's talk page. Do whatever you wish with your userpage; so long as you don't call for or threaten legal action on-wiki, I care not. You did threaten to hack and vandalize the site, however, and that is still under discussion at ANI. You may also wish to review WP:NCR, as I believe your comments here and elsewhere are doing nothing but making a frightful exhibition of yourself. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- kainaw™ 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You call it abusing Wikipedia as a political toy, I call it self-preservation. If SOPA/PIPA were enacted as they were originally proposed, it is highly plausible that Wikipedia could be either forced to shut down entirely, or at the very least make massive changes to the way it works in such a way as to cripple its usefulness (i.e. like disallowing external links altogether). Protesting SOPA wasn't a political exercise, it was a reaction to proposed legislation that could have seriously undermined the millions of hours of work that have been spent to create this place. (A political exercise would have been slapping a big banner at the top of Wikipedia that says "Vote for Rick Perry!") The other concept you might be failing to realize is that the decision to blackout the site wasn't made by Jimbo or the WMF, the community decided to do it by consensus and the WMF carried out the community's wishes. What's worse? Making Wikipedia unavailable for 24 hours to ensure the continued existence of the site, or allowing legislation to be passed which eventually cripples or shuts down Wikipedia entirely? How much good would your donations do if Wikipedia no longer existed? Asking for a refund of your donations in response to the WP community's decision to self-preserve is somewhat immature IMHO, and shows a misunderstanding of the nature of donations (which generally don't buy you any influence with the organization to whom you are donating, and which generally are non-refundable even if you later disagree with one thing the organization did). —SW— ^confabulate 15:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on many of your statements:

1. It was not a community decision. Most activity on Wikipedia takes place, region by region, during the 9 to 5 work day. It is obvious that most people edit while at work or school. This discussion was purposely run over a three-day holiday weekend to avoid getting input from most users. Further, it was not advertised. It was done very quickly and quietly to avoid getting community consensus. Then, when people returned to work on Tuesday, they were told that the decision was made and if they wanted to make input, they could go screw themselves.
2. SOPA, as it was written during the discussion, would not undermine Wikipedia in any way. If you read the bill, you would know that. As written, this is how it would work if there was an objectionable link on Wikipedia: The person/company that holds the copyright must contact Wikipedia to have it removed. Wikipedia must have a very clear method of contacting them for this purpose. Then, once contacted, someone (anyone) at Wikipedia must remove the offending link. This would be the same if there wany copyrighted content found on Wikipedia. The whole "we will be shut down" thing is just FUD. That comes in if Wikipedia purposely refuses to comply with the takedown request. Then, the copyright holder goes to court, as specified in SOPA. A request is made to ban DNS resolution for the domain name (wikipedia.org). If the judge agrees, all American DNS services must remove wikipedia.org from their servers. My problem with SOPA is that it doesn't provide a way to refuse the takedown request on the grounds that there is no copyright violation. If someone would take the time to read SOPA instead of the thousands of misinformed blogs, they could focus on the real problem, not the FUD.
3. My biggest problem is that I donated to an encyclopedia. I did not donate to a protest group. My money was taken and then used by a group that wants to call themselves the community, but (as I stated above) purposely did not include me. They took down Wikipedia without allowing me to comment. That is the big issue: This was done without allowing the users to comment.

Now, if the discussion had been open, advertised, and performed when users could comment on it, I would happily accept the community decision. I would be able to state that I do not agree with the blackout, but I accept what others want. This was purposely done in a way to ensure I wouldn't comment in the discussion. Taking my money is fine with the WMF. Misinforming people about SOPA is fine with the WMF. Allowing me to comment in the discussion is not fine with the WMF. So, I am no longer allowed to edit outside this talk page. I expect to have that privilege removed soon. -- kainaw™ 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the full blackout proposal had 867 participants over 72 hours. If someone was purposely trying to limit discussion (an assumption of bad faith without evidence), then they failed miserably. 88.0% of those participants supported the proposal. If you had the opportunity to get your oppose vote in, that would have swung it all the way to 87.9%. In other words, the end result would not have changed, even if 100 additional voters had participated and they all opposed.

I don't have the time or the ability to read through and understand raw legislation, so I rely on others' analyses. Perhaps you read the analysis by WMF's general counsel (which I personally wouldn't characterize as a "misinformed blog"). Among other things, it claims that "Wikimedia [could] be tasked to review millions upon millions of sourced links, locate the links of the so-called 'foreign infringing sites,' and block them from our articles or other projects. It costs donors' money and staff resources to undertake such a tremendous task, and it must be repeated every time a prosecutor delivers a court order from any federal judge in the United States on any new 'foreign infringing site.' Blocking links runs against our culture of open knowledge, especially when surgical solutions to fighting infringing material are available." And if Wikimedia wanted to contest that a link was inappropriate, they would have to spend considerable money to fight the battle in court. Someone with sufficient resources and motivation could easily shut down Wikipedia (or any site) simply by forcing WMF to spend all of its money on legal fees.

You didn't donate to an encyclopedia, you donated to a foundation which administers an encyclopedia, and part of the function of that foundation is to respond to external threats to its continued existence. Judging from the aftermath of the blackout, I'd say your donation was well spent. If you disagree, then don't donate anymore. And, I think it has been explained to you multiple times that your perception that you are not allowed to edit outside of this talk page is imaginary, so I'm not sure why you continue to say that. The only time you'll be disallowed from editing is if you're blocked, and it'll be crystal clear when you're blocked. You're not blocked, you can edit anywhere you want as long as you don't post legal threats.

The blackout is over. Time to get back to building an encyclopedia. —SW— ^verbalize 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is based on my direct experience. I took my family on a vacation on the 6th - there was no hint of a discussion. I came back on the 9th - the discussion was closed. The blackout is not over. The banner clearly states: "We're not done yet." That is my big issue. I also disagree with SOPA. I simply disagree with using Wikipedia as a political toy. It was done once in a way that I disagree with. It will be done again (and again and again). As for editing - I don't even see the edit links anymore. I only see "View Source". If I hard-code the edit URL into my address bar, I get redirected to a source view with no edit capability. -- kainaw™ 19:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not currently blocked, and your block log is empty. If you had been autoblocked for some reason, that would show in the log. If your browser is not permitting you to edit, then you've either got a script running improperly or your browser has some sort of error that is preventing you from editing. Or you were logged out. Clearly you were able to edit this page, so I'm not sure what issue exists. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Or you're trying to edit a protected page, which is usually the only time I ever see the "View source" link instead of the regular edit link. Also, if Wikipedia had to schedule all discussions around every editor's personal vacation schedule, it's unlikely that anything would ever get done. It's a bit disingenuous to say "The blackout discussion was purposely scheduled during a time that would minimize participation in the discussion" when really the truth is that the blackout discussion happened to be scheduled during your personal vacation, and otherwise the blackout discussion was probably among the top 5 discussions on Wikipedia (ever) by participation level. The world doesn't revolve around you, even if you donated a lot of money to WMF. —SW— ^prattle 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you still around?

I was used to getting help from you on the computer help page. Are you still around? Nobody has answered my questions lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.182.66 (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I still read Wikipedia now and then. I saw your question about getting Windows to allow a phone to charge. That's a hard one. I had to ask a few guys at Microsoft until someone showed me the very hidden setting. However, I no longer help Wikipedia or donate money to Wikipedia. Instead, I develop tools to vandalize Wikipedia and put the monthly money I used to donate into a savings account that I use to pay vandals to use the tools I develop. -- kainaw™ 14:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)