User talk:Objective3000

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

User talk
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered.

This will ensure that conversations remain together!



Please carry the conversation on at User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Conflict_of_Interest.2FAdvertising.2FContentiousness. Fredbauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an unused and unmonitored account. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Appears to be no need for now as the editor has been blocked twice and will likely be indeffed.Objective3000 (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know[edit]

I was editing blackjack eight months back, and your constant reverting got to me a bit. Left this whole section in fact. I thought u owned blackjackhero and that casinocity. However I didnt know about the other 2 domains, and i was just surprised to find this name everywhere, and looked it up on wikipedia, no article. So don;t think i was attacking you in that way, cuz thats out of order, someone did it to me a few months earlier, outed me, and I was mad pissed off. In any case, just wanted to let u know i have no connection with goldberg or whoever else, and am not here to attack u in any underhanded way. Nobody contacted me by the way, i am nobody's puppet. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no connection to blackjackhero and don't know what casinocity is. I do not own gambling portals. I am simply a BJ researcher.Objective3000 (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi "Objective3000".

I'm really sorry to bother you but I just registered to Wikipedia in order to be part of that fantastic tool (mainly about my field, Gambling) and the least I can say is that... it's unmistakable at first glance!

Let's make it short, I think it would be nice to add that link: to the page on card counting. It's my website, it's free, no advert, etc. It's dedicated to card games, Magic, etc. It's merely a tool I devised to allow people practicing card counting with several systems. The purpose is not to get some free advertisement (it's a personal website, I couldn't care less about advertisement!), it's simply to provide a free (and I think helpful) resource for that article. There are almost no free resource for practicing card counting on the web!

Problem is I understand nothing about how adding a reference! I edit the section and I can't see the already available references. I'm completely lost. Thus, would you be so kind to explain to me how to proceed? I just spend one hour with the Wikipedia help system, I tested with the sandbox, well, it doesn't work at all.

Thanks for your time. And again, really sorry to bother you about that! I simply had to ask to someone in the know :-).

OTDFTB (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are dozens of free apps like this on the web.Objective3000 (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer![edit]

Thanks for your time, Objective3000!

Well, it doesn't help me that much about how to add a link but anyway, I'll fight with Wikipedia help system :-).

You say there are dozens of free apps like that on the Web. Why there is none referenced in that page then? Can you name one? Mine is free, belongs to a non-profit-making website and is available all the time. The few I found are for smartphones (and then not open to everyone) or belong to gambling websites (mainly there to attract people). You also have to pay for many of them. Besides, none of them are cross-platform (they require Windows, or #.Net, or MacOS, etc.). I don't think we are talking about the same material :-).

Or maybe I've been unluncky...


OTDFTB (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are numerous such free web apps. My personal opinion is that they trivialize the concept of card-counting, which takes many skills. But, that is not why they are not linked to by WP. WP is an encylopedia. It is not a how-to or a directory. See WP:GAMEGUIDE.Objective3000 (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I got it![edit]

Yes, you're damn right, card counting is not only a matter of adding and subtracting numbers. Thanks for the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OTDFTB (talkcontribs) 21:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Blackjack Side Bets[edit]

I notice you reverted my additional side bet on this page. Fair enough. I am a less than part time contributor. However, I only added that particular side bet because it is refered to elsewhere in that section (and I had to go somewhere else to find out what it was). Should that other reference not also be deleted?

" The house edge for side games is generally higher than for the blackjack game itself. Nonetheless side games can be susceptible to card counting, often requiring bespoke counting systems. Most side games do not offer sufficient win rate to justify the effort of advantage play; exceptions are "Lucky ladies" and "Over/Under" " Alan LeHun (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the other ref should be removed also. It's there because it was the first such side bet heavily attacked by counters.Objective3000 (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. It does seem strange to me that I had to google a term that I had come across on Wikipedia. I shall leave it to you to ponder on any further edit, on the grounds of your greater knowledge on the subject, but I do feel the term should be either briefly explained or removed completely. Ty and Tc. Alan LeHun (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have retired from editing after Wikipedia abandoned its mission of creating an objective encyclopedia and initiated its new life as a political lobbyist.Objective3000 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The High Card Count[edit]

Hello, Objective3000 and thank you for your time.

On the 28th of November I attempted to edit the 'Card Counting' page (with the section written attached to the bottom of the message) and the change was removed for various reasons primary being a one time comment in addition to the method being relatively new.

In terms of the high card count the method has been developed and tested by the team at [dele]

Here you will find an explanation of the method and its differences to the standard methods of card counting: [dele]

And here is a pdf. file demonstrating the mathematics behind the method: [dele]

The one time comment was due to having never had anything of worth to put on wikipedia that was not already on there. This new method does deserve a mention as it is a completely new way of card counting that proves to be effective and that people who are interested should know about, with the mathematics side which can be quite complex and long winded referenced.

Please look over the message again and offere some feedback if the wording or formatting isn't to your liking.

Many thanks,


Recently a card counting system has been created which removes the fast mathematics needed from the process of counting. The method known as the High Card Count is based on averages and follows the equation:

"The Count for each round = The number of players on the table (including the dealer) - The number of high cards (10-A) that were dealt during the round"

This method proves to be less profitable than traditional methods providing under a 1% advantage to the player but is much more accessible and is becoming increasingly more popular among beginners due to its ease.

Reference - [dele]

Thank you. But, there is nothing new about this system. This type of system is invented every few years. Past examples include: Speed Count, OPP, Drunk Count, and Master Count. The strategy basically doesn’t work in practice. In theory, it can give you a positive EV. But, the gain is so tiny that the risk is enormous. It is also debatable that it is any easier than unbalanced strategies like KO, which are far more powerful. The statement that it “is becoming increasingly more popular among beginners due to its ease” is false, advertising hype. Objective3000 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Assistance in updating all things blackjack, card counting, and advantage play.[edit]

Hey Objective3000, I am really new to Wikipedia and one of my areas of expertise is around blackjack, card counting, and other forms of advantage play. I noticed that you seem to be the most active individual within these area and I was wondering if you would assist me in adding additional details to existing pages and in creating new pages regarding professional card counters and teams.


Pharaoh8787 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've retired from substantive work here and pretty much just correct new errors. I'll be glad to review work or answer questions. I would think new pages on pros would not make much sense. Most true pros would have no interest in WP pages about them.Objective3000 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing I would love to send my updates before I go ahead and officially make the updates. I am new the site so what is the best process for me to do this? Also I was looking to add information on pros that are retired and previously ran teams, but are no longer active. Pharaoh8787 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You can post them to the relevant article Talk page. I'll see them, as will others.Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

History of free and open-source software[edit]

I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia's "rollback" feature works since I don't have access to it, but having said that it looks like you rolled back to a much earlier revision, and I'm not sure why you chose to do so, reverting some apparently uncontroversial edits of mine such as this typo fix edit in the process, when you reverted my more contentious edit relating to Mac OS X. Please don't revert excessively.

I do believe that I had some useful things to contribute in those edits, so I'm going to try to re-add all of that content.

P.S. The text I deleted wasn't "well-supported", the whole point I was making on Talk was that the text I deleted wasn't "well-supported", indeed it appeared to be itself OR with a "reference" added which did not in fact prove all the points it was trying to make. You may well of course be able to find some famous person saying the same thing as the text I deleted said - but if so, you need to cite them - not some random collection of old pieces of software. Citing raw data with no analysis of possible counterexamples, and furthermore raw data that does not come from a reliable source, is just OR, plain and simple.

P.P.S. I actually wrote approximately half of the text in that article, so... just FYI, I'm not some random clueless person.--greenrd (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but IMO the entire article, as I have said before, is largely OR, shows bias, and often strays from the article title.Objective3000 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's quite as bad as it looks to you. In terms of factual accuracy, I think it's actually quite good, though needs improvements in places. I can handle rewriting and rewriting again and adding citations until another editor is satisfied. But if half a dozen of my edits are reverted in one fell swoop, including very innocuous ones like the typo fix, that is rather demoralising for me and discourages me from contributing to Wikipedia. All of my edits that you reverted were made in good faith. If you want to make specific criticisms of individual lines or parts, I would be happy to respond to your criticisms individually, but a one-line blanket criticism of half a dozen edits with little indication as to which criticism applies to what, or why, is rather frustrating to try to respond to.--greenrd (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. You appear to be trying to push a POV. For example, the word even should never be used as it automatically suggests POV. Frustration is a side-effect of pushing a POV. Perhaps you should edit articles where you have no POV.Objective3000 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Digital rights management has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Aoidh (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolute Bull. Stop edit-warring and inserting silly material to back your POV. Objective3000 (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Unless you can show where I inserted "an unreliable source (an unknown student) advising teens to steal.", it's hardly "bull" to note that your edit summary is inaccurate given that I have inserted nothing like that into the article. Please be more careful with your edit summaries in the future, thank you. There is also a talk page discussion you are welcome to contribute to on the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
After looking into it, I think you've confused me for a different editor. This edit summary seems to be referring to this reference. I don't recall ever seeing that reference before and (to my knowledge) it's never been on the DRM article. I am a different editor and that is a different article completely. - Aoidh (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I did confuse you with another editor. There is a student continually inserting advice that stealing is good into multiple articles based on the philosophy of another completely unknown student, and reverting any attempts to remove.Objective3000 (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
He also tried to add it to DRM. There is a lengthy discussion on DRM's Talk. I believe this is the third page where he has done this. But, can't remember the other. Objective3000 (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert[edit]

You may be right, but I don't think so. Searching news adobe adept drm is instructive, read for yourself. Almost nobody thinks it works, nor trusts that they will continue to have access to the restricted content. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The search that you provided brings up articles from four years ago. The first recent article states that this is a "rumor". Encyclopedias are not based on rumors. The articles are also in highly biased blogs clearly pushing a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to say to click to select the past month. Anyhow, this discussion includes comments by Adobe's product manager which clarifies their intention. Doesn't really concern me personally, I don't have any DRM'd Adobe books, but WMF in general is rather "libre" in its orientation. WP of course relies on access to sources to enable wp:V. So long as the changes don't impair that access, I CBA'd what they change, it's just a dumb business decision. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

R u a bot or a person can u help me understand wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit that you have made nine times, and has been reverted nine times by multiple editors, is not acceptable for many reasons. It is not verifiable (See WP:V), it is not notable (WP:IINFO), it is obvious SPAM (WP:SPAM), and it is a ridiculous scam system.Objective3000 (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:ComplexQuartly.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Digital "restrictions" management[edit]

Just to let you know, talk pages of redirect-pages generally don't get much traffic. Your proposal (which I would be inclined to support) would be best made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.Objective3000 (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem with the documentation of a fact, in its own separate article? There is an active campaign by a very notable organization to oppose DRM by reassigning its meaning. Do you deny the notability of opposition movements? Would you delete the page about the Tea Party movement because it has "nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party"? That is not objective 1, much less 3000. As you are active against Free Software Articles in general (apparently, at least mentioned above) I would ask you to disclose your biases. Do you--for instance--work for a firm that creates DRM technology? Metaeducation (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. What the hell are you going on about and what page did I try to delete? I hate DRM. Your assumption that I support and use it simply because I am following Wikipedia rules shows your extreme bias. Objective3000 (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I only asked you to disclose your biases. And I thought you said you were retired. Edit warring will get us nowhere on this; if we need to escalate to arbitration let's just start that process now. Metaeducation (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk-page stalker) @Metaeducation: Please remember to be civil and not discuss editors and rather content :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 13:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, please see WP:GF. I have never been a part of any organization that, to my knowledge, has ever used DRM. I have also probably given away more software in my 48 years in the IT field than you have likely ever used. Is that clear enough? If you want to discuss, then discuss the subject and not my handle or imagined, hidden motives. Objective3000 (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Relax. I've given away a lot too. Your position just struck me as odd. If we're on the same team then there should be no harm, no foul. Let's just figure out how to be encyclopedic, 'K? Metaeducation (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
@Solarra: I'd like it to be all friendly. But if people advertise themselves on their user page as retired editors with an overt anti-Wikipedia statement, I don't think that's untouchable in discussions when you find them reverting one's edits done in good faith. In this case I believe I am advocating a reasonable position: namely that "Digital Restrictions Management" redirect to "Defective by Design" and not "Digital Rights Management". (As of this moment, that bit is unreverted... so far so good.) I also believe that no one owns three letter combinations. Thus an alternative acronym has as much right to the disambiguation page for the three letters as "Reichsmark's ISO 4027 code" or the clowns who invented DRM. (Yes I am strongly anti-DRM philosophically, not paid to be so, nor do I want to retitle the article and rewrite history.) This user's choice to revert without discussion does bother me (as I suppose all reverts rankle -- it goes with the territory -- I've been idle for a while here but this got me back in). But I do think my position can be argued objectively, and am willing to bring it up to a broader audience. Whether the alternate acronym ultimately gets mentioned in the "Digital Rights Management" article or not is a question mark; I'll admit I don't know; and I've accepted the revert on that article. Though I'd personally prefer a mention of the alternative if DRM redirects to that page implicitly. (If it did not "own" DRM, I'd give it a pass, because there'd be no need to explain alternative meanings of DRM if DRM went to the disambiguation page letting one choose one's own choice of reading.) Anyway, from reading the talk page I feel this is a bigger issue that should be brought before established editors, and there is no value in a minor edit war. Metaeducation (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
You are misstating the facts:
1. I made no overt anti-Wikipedia statement. I believe in Wikipedia’s stated mission probably more than WP itself and was very upset when Wikipedia shut down 2.5 years ago to make a purely political point to the congress of one country, against its own mission statement, disrupting massive numbers of users that have grown dependent on its availability. Now, please stop discussing editors and start discussing the subject.
2. Your claim that I revert without discussion is nonsense. I have discussed the issue at length on the DRM Talk Page.
3. If you are simply advocating that digital restrictions management should redirect to defective by design, why are you making personal attacks on my User Page? I have done absolutely nothing to stop this and have made absolutely no comments against it. No one has reverted this.
4. This is not an edit war between us. Multiple editors have reverted the attempt to co-opt the acronym. And, as you have admitted here, your purpose is a strong anti-DRM bias. The fact that you are biased on the subject does not mean everyone else is if they don't share your bias. Perhaps you should concentrate on articles where you have no strong biases.Objective3000 (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"If you are simply advocating that digital restrictions management should redirect to defective by design" (...) "I have done absolutely nothing to stop this and have made absolutely no comments against it. No one has reverted this." Okay, then we are halfway toward what I would call a reasonable solution. The other half is when you allow it to stand as being listed in the disambiguation page for what the letters DRM stand for (in the universe of things that DRM may be considered to stand for). If you have a further aesthetic objection to having the alternate acronym mentioned on the Digital Rights Management page in any way/shape/form... I don't understand the level of passion about not wanting the mention because it's "made up" (so was "Digital Rights Management", and made up by people who are not cool). But guess it's not really that big a deal as long as Defective By Design is linked somewhere in there, and the topic may rest. Metaeducation (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Several editors have stopped this because it gives undue weight. Discussion is on the DRM Talk Page, where it belongs. Objective3000 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Your insistance that the Blackjack article say a game has "zero to three" players[edit]

I have to admit that I find your insistence in inserting "At the beginning of each round, zero to three players place their bets in the "betting box" at each position in play" into the Blackjack article stunning. This is absolutely incorrect and as I pointed out, is hilariously contrary to an illustrative picture to the right of this text which shows a four handed game. Willfully adding information you know is incorrect can be termed "vandalism" but I suspect what we have here is instead a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I am not going to get into an edit war with you over this... it is so obviously incorrect that I doubt anyone reading the article will not realize immediately the error in your action and I am not going to spend any further energy on this in any way, shape or form. I will leave it to another editor to have to deal with your inexplicable need to insert obviously incorrect information back into the encyclopedia. Marteau (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIV and WP:AGF as you are in gross violation of both. Also, please explain what is wrong with the text that you are trying to delete, added not by me originally. And, please reread it as it says 0 to 3 in each betting box, not 0-3 per table. I may have to change the 680 page Blackjack book I wrote.:)Objective3000 (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for my tone. I still do feel that the text you re-inserted is incorrect and does not apply to all games, which is implied in that text. It needs to be qualified, saying that the rules vary on that. The way it is phrased does not indicate that the rules may vary but is phrased as if those are the rules, period. Being as you are published in the field, you would certainly be qualified to add such clarification. Marteau (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Accepted. Indeed, there are a vast number of variations of Blackjack, as stated in the lede. I list over 100 in my book. If you go back and reread the paragraph, you will see that it already states that in many U.S. casinos, only one person is allowed to bet on each position.Objective3000 (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. Which book would that be, please? -The Gnome (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not here to push my books. Objective3000 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Political views on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson#Where to place information about the Bush quote[edit]

Hello, I just saw that the conversation seemed to drift off into talking about climate change and all kinds of other stuff then what section it should be placed into. I think somewhere, somehow, that off topic cov. should be rolled up, but maybe I picked the wrong spot. What is the accusation that you were responding to? You appear to be responding to Kerani. His response seems on topic (he says it seems relevant to his political views and should stay in that topic and that a new controversy section would be difficult and fraught with negative repercussions), I don't exactly see the allegation. If you want I would be happy to roll up what is under that statement of yours and leave your statement, that would serve the same purpose of taking most of the Off-topic conv out of the main flow. --Obsidi (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response here as it's geting tense there. I responded to: "it's criticism of exactly the same type Wikipedia routinely includes in biographies of conservatives." which I believe to be political and inflammatory. And, I asked what he meant by this. My intent was to stop such political accusations. Indeed AGF vios. It's a Talk page. So, I didn't delete his vio, but asked for an explanation. I think you left the accusation standing without the questioning. I certainly mean no disrespect by this. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see (the indent was off so I thought you were talking to a different person), so it was the "of conservatives" part that you saw as politically inflammatory (which it is). Do you mind if I rollup the people who answered to your question and leave your statement? (it just starts going downhill after that into all kinds of other stuff).--Obsidi (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Be bold.:) Objective3000 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Objective3000. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Weight issues with religious views sourced only to a Youtube video.The discussion is about the topic Neil deGrasse Tyson. Thank you. --Obsidi (talk ) 05:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

Please see this report and comment where appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm missing any connection. This looks a bit like canvasing. Apologies if I missed something. Objective3000 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

SOPA initiative[edit]

Hi! You removed my properly referenced statement that both SOPA and PIPA are dead from WP:SOPA initiative/Learn more diff. In the edit summary, you called my statement "an opinion" although it was supported by reliable sources. The question on the page is "Are SOPA and PIPA dead?", and I provided reliable sources that say they are dead. You removed those and reverted to the answer "Not at all". How can it be "Not at all" if those sources say they are dead? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it shameful that Wikipedia has dropped its concept of objectivity and become a political lobbyist. The page should be removed. It won't be removed as WP is now political, and no longer a real encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Where does NBC Nightly News' name change belong within the Brian Williams article, and does it belong?[edit]

Hi -- I left you a long rebuttal to your views on "assumptions" and to the relocation within the article of the name change on the Nightly News over on the Brian Williams' talk page. I am eager to hear your response, and, as you, do not appreciate others' allusions to "vandalism" and "absurd[ities]." I mean nothing like that; you and I, at least, seem just to have a sincere disagreement as to how the article should be structured. Bruiserid (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Per your comments, I have added more references to the Brian Williams article. You took something out citing references so I added more. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Six refs to the same original article are just one ref. And, it's a silly article. Objective3000 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

CoI issue?[edit]

Your recent edit on Talk:The Pirate Bay seems to imply that you issued a abuse request to CloudFlare about the pirate bay, meaning you have a legal relation to the site. If this is the case, I would encouraged you to disclose this on your talk page, as recommended by Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Belorn (talk)

@Belorn:I suggest that you not invent issues where they do not exist. I issued an abuse request to CloudFlare about a very small site having nothing whatsoever to do with TPB in specific or piracy in general. CloudFlare front-ends over 1,500,000 sites. Objective3000 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I asked you here politely because it seemed implied that you had experience in this context. Thank you for a clear answer. Belorn (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Brian Williams[edit]

WHAT is "grossly undue"? The only mention of "undue weight" on the talk page is about the name change of his program, which doesn't even appear to be in the article any more. – Smyth\talk 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There has been enormous discussion of the undue weight of items in this section without any consensus. That's why someone added the tag. Objective3000 (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to bring other people into the conversation. Continuing at Talk:Brian Williams. – Smyth\talk 11:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a RfC. This was settled. You can't keep bringing up the same nonsense, over and over. Life is too short. Objective3000 (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Call me an idiot, but to someone like me coming to the article without having been involved in the previous discussions, it's not obvious from the talk page what the tag refers to or why it is still there. That's all I want to understand, I'm not taking a position on the argument itself. Is your opinion simply that the entire controversy section is given undue weight relative to the rest of his career? – Smyth\talk 12:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't put the tag there. But, yes the entire section is undue and some of it is quite absurd. This was discussed at enormous length. Unfortunately, a few editors hold serious hatred toward this man. Objective3000 (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. – Smyth\talk 16:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What is your problem with me copying this to the article talk page? I'm only trying to stop others making the same mistake I made. – Smyth\talk 17:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, you think there is a difference between the two pages. So, realize that I also believe there is a difference between the two pages. My edit was designed for this page. By copying it, you are making an edit on another page using my username. Objective3000 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I understood that that was your original objection. That's why I surrounded it with a box indicating where I copied it from. This isn't a private conversation, and anyone is free to quote it anywhere relevant. – Smyth\talk 21:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You can ref it. I've never seen anyone quote an edit, except in a disciplinary effort. But, I don't even think that's reasonable here. If I want to make an argument on an article talk page, I will do so. I don't want other people inserting things I've said, private or public. Objective3000 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. – Smyth\talk 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Roulette Page Edit[edit]

Hi, the details you have provided on my site are inacurate. There is no security issues (maybe McAfee gave a false positive). Secondly, the page displayed is completely relevant, contains no commercial content and was written by Al Moe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyjoe1012 (talkcontribs) 11:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be admitting that you are link spamming. In any case, I took a further look at the site. Numerous links are blocked by McAfee. Numerous links are affiliate links where the affid has been hidden by CSS, despite the statement on each page claiming the site is not affiliated with any online casino. Text that clearly pushes people to play online casinos. In no way could this be considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for fighting so hard against a wall of stubborn. I would never be able to go that far in saying what you said. —烏Γ (kaw), 01:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes you just have to laugh. Objective3000 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For diligence in promoting proper application of guidelines and common sense in the face of dedicated opposition, I hereby award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. —烏Γ (kaw), 20:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

About deleting your stuff - is WP broken?[edit]

About about this edit where you text got deleted. I'm not sure, but it was NOT intended, to delete then or ever). It seems I SHOULD have gotten an edit conflict but I didn't. I think WP might be broken, this has not happened to me before today I think. I just remember edit conflicts occasionally.

We are both editing frequently, but the times do not match very closely so I'm a little confused. But sometimes I take my time to edit and look up stuff elsewhere delaying me pressing "enter". In any case, I'm not trying to destroy something you wrote. I'm really sorry, I had not even seen this text of yours before. comp.arch (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

manufacturer – definition[edit]

"a person, group, or company that owns or runs a manufacturing plant."[1]

"Entity that makes a good through a process involving raw materials, components, or assemblies, usually on a large scale with different operations divided among different workers."[2]

The manufacturing analogy for software is often used, too often, as it breaks down, one of the reason, software is not as reliable ans engineering. Developer is ok, and vendor. Anyway, not too important for the DRM article or it's talk page. comp.arch (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why didn't you include the entire definition? "The act or process of producing something", "To produce as if by manufacturing : create <writers who manufacture stories for television>". Objective3000 (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Because I didn't (and don't) see it at the two dictionaries I first found. As I pointed out said, manufacturing happens in a plant. And software development doesn't happen there, except by analogy. See: Plant (disambiguation) that lists "Physical plant, often just called "plant", a facility's infrastructure (i.e., "Plant Room")" and "Processing plant, in process manufacturing" and nothing related to software. Developer/development and vendor are better words for software. It has been know for some time that the Waterfall model ("[originating] in the manufacturing and construction industries") is a flawed model for software, rarely used to the letter, as it breaks down (many million dollar examples).
You said it yourself "produce as if by manufacturing". comp.arch (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Then get a new dictionary. You're claim is like that of the pirates that claim piracy isn't stealing because IP is intangible. The definition of steal has included intangible objects for centuries. The current definition of manufacturing includes IP. Objective3000 (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

3RR at Software manufacturing[edit]

You are currently at WP:3RR at Software manufacturing. Please be advised that continual reverting may get you blocked. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

No I am not. You are the most dishonest editor I have run into in years. Numerous complaints of edit-warring have been placed on your talk page -- all of which you delete and call vandalism. You have even threatened other editors that bring up your edit-warring. In one case, you reverted EIGHT times the edits of several other editors, and claimed that they were edit-warring and you weren't You do not own Wikipedia. Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It's looking like we need to examine your behavior over time. So many edit-warrings on so many articles. So many threats against anyone that disagrees with you on multiple articles. It looks like you can be a productive contributor. But, your attitude towards other volunteer contributors, your seeming belief that you know the "truth" even in articles where you don't appear to have any actual knowledge or refs, your constant reverts and refusal to discuss compromise with your beliefs, simply isn't working. Objective3000 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Policies & guidelines[edit]

You need to try to understand how to apply policies and guidelines. WP:NOTDIR applies to article content but not to valid links to articles in the "see also" section. If you have a problem with the content in an article, rather than trying to block links to an article, address the problem in the article in question. In the case of List of The Pirate Bay proxies, fixing that article or nominating it for deletion is the correct course of action. --AussieLegend () 16:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you still claim that TPB never broke any laws -- despite the fact that they lost all appeals and went to prison? Seriously, you need to stop denying reality and lecturing other editors when your own editing has been absurd. And yes, the article will be nominated for deletion. Keep your crap off my Talk Page. Objective3000 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The linked article was just created two days ago by CFCF and then linked to by him to get around the fact that he couldn't add the links in the TPB article. This is a blatant, shameless attempt to circumvent Wikipedia guidelines and an RfC. As I predicted, the RfC would be ignored. It doesn't matter how many noticeboards rule against you guys; you just ignore them and continue pushing your POV in favor of this illegal site. Objective3000 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
AfD resulted in delete. Objective3000 (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ultra nationalist propaganda at the Donald Trump page[edit]

Sir, you claim to be "objective" and dedicated to making Wikipedia non-partisan, and yet it is puzzling why you forbid any mention of the deeply notable controversies involving Trump's plans to deport up to 25 million American residents, at least half of them full citizens? How can this not be in violation of policy requiring mention of such significant controversies in the article lead? This is a deep puzzle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Trump is a joke. But, you violated numerous policies and reacted horribly. Discussion with you does not look to be productive. Objective3000 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC) has been banned. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

TPB, you keep swapping into older endings.[edit]

I don't see the point in having an unstable link, and at least add the Alexa rating of the highest site.

I mean if you are going to be stubborn about the site's ending don't edit out useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed for over a year and brought to multiple noticeboards. Wikipedia is based on consensus. There was a decision. Respect the consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

But for a site that should have up to date information deciding that having information that is known to be false/not the most current information is misleading. Some teachers even accept(as false as it is) wikipedia as a source... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are based on good sources and aim for reliability. This is more important than timeliness. If you want timely information that is usually wrong, use Twitter. Objective3000 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)