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


This is/*+?a major story (or should/will be) regarding the Washington Post's leak of information regarding a source. What should or should not be included in the Wikipedia article? The information I just added is now general knowledge. If a name comes up do we include it? - Tεxτurε 18:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I've uploaded and included an image (Image:0x80 cracker with laptop.jpg) that is still in the article (p.5); I believe this to be fair use because of the importance of the images to the story. Because images with the location metadata are still available on the Post site, I've removed the sentence about them trying to "contain the damage". Superm401 - Talk 00:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

They seem now to have genuinely removed all the 0x80 images on the site. It was clearly done in a hurry, as they are still linked from their onsite media search. Luckily, I anticipated this development and have all the images saved to my drive. Do you think we should post them as well? It would probably be fair use. Superm401 - Talk 00:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I added some information about it to the article. Superm401 - Talk 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a mirror of the first page of the original article at Mirrordot. It contains the two images I didn't post (which I have copies of, as stated). Superm401 - Talk 01:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Nick Feito[edit]

Is this guy really important to the article? What relevance does a 27-year old construction worker have on this?

I've removed the section; it was out of place (overspecific and biased against AOL). If someone wants to make a more general one about all victims and their security software (as well as the worm), they can go ahead. Superm401 - Talk 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)