User talk:Bad Monk3y

Cleaned out and waiting for the personal attacks to fly.

We don't need your type, here. --Othtim 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, does that mean? What is "my type"? I'm not sure what I did to deserve that. -- Bad Monk3y 22:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<3 --Othtim 02:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD On Blacklisted! 411

I made a good faith effort to find WP:RS cites to back up notability for this zine. I know it has been on bookstore shelves in the past, but there are other zines that can make the same claim that aren't notable (I'm happy to prove that with a quick trip to Borders if you disagree). I was surprised to find nothing but catalog entries and blog posts.

You are clearly going to disagree with this nom, so I figured I'd give you the heads up. If you can find reliable sourcing for it, I'll quickly concede.

Here's a link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blacklisted! 411.

(Yes, I have a POV here --- I want to scrub vanity articles out of WP's infosec coverage.)

--- tqbf 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not going to argue too much about this one. Personally, I do think it is notable, but I only created the entry because it was missing. This is what wikipedia is about...adding information for research and reference materials. Buy deleting everything that you get your hands on, you are destroying a resource that other may find valuable. That being said, If the nomination get passed, then I will abide by it. I will not go behind it and start crying over being on the short end of a decision like some people seem to do. I do think, however, that articles classified as a "stub" (which I tagged this entry with) should be given some leeway and time to grow before you go on another Deletionism rampage. We are diametrically opposed on our wiki philosophies since I am a firm Inclusionist and believe that time and effort should be spent expanding human knowledge, not destroying it. Bad Monk3y 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well-reasoned response. My cards are on the table: the use of WP as a directory of hacker trivia is damaging the real infosec content (for instance, we have amateur cryptographers with no publications sharing the same categories as Eli Biham). I was surprised to see how little of a dent Blacklisted! seems to have made in the universe --- but there's an AfD with my findings. --- tqbf 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But see, this is the heart of the problem. You do not seem to have the ability to differentiate between the hacking community (of which I am a part) versus the "infosec" community of which you claim as your own. Things that are notable to me and my community are very different than your community. The difference between us (while maintaining all WP:CIV that I can) is that I can be open-minded enough to stay on my side of the fence and judge the article that relate to my community. I would request that you step back to your side of the fence and handle your own topics. If you are not a hacker, then you cannot maintain WP:NPOV on the hacker community. Bad Monk3y 06:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree. But at least we know where we stand. --- tqbf 06:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

When did Blacklisted41 get AFD'd? Crap, man. Every hacker knows what Blacklisted is... =/ --Othtim (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to butt in) See: [1]. I reiterate: happy to give (both of you) a heads up when I AfD or prod things you've worked on, or anything in the category. --- tqbf 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's too bad. Blacklisted was the only printed magazine with international distribution licenses other than 2600. It was (the first magazine to be) distributed as a disk-based electronic magazine, as far back as 1983. It's as much a part of hacking history as Lloyd Blakenship or the LOD. Perhaps though, a page could be created for "historic hacker literature", rather than putting it on it's own page. That way things like TAP and Blacklisted and 40HEX could have a page where they could all be developed as a group, rather than individual. --Othtim (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent article idea. --- tqbf 04:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPA accusations

I saw a comment recently accusing me of having a single purpose account and that I only worked on a couple of specific articles. I found this confusing since I know that I have worked on SEVERAL hacking related articles (my area of expertise which is why I stay within those confines) but when I checked my history, I saw that there were only a few recent edits showing only edits to a couple of articles. I knew this was untrue since I have had the account much longer than that and I know that I have worked on many other articles. What I realized was that a recent user went on a delete rampage (my choice of words) and when articles get deleted, they disappear from your contributions history. All of my work and my contribution history was wiped out for this reason so to anyone questioning my character, please do not think that this is a sock puppet or a SPA.

I find this sleazy to accuse someone of this and are now trying to make it look like something else entirely. I am deeply offended and insulted and all this has done is made me want to quit wikipedia entirely. People like user:tqbf kill wikipedia for all of us. I hope people see his true character. Bad Monk3y 02:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPA isn't an insult, Bad Monk3y. When I wrote that, you hadn't edited anything unrelated to StankDawg and his "Digital DawgPound". Is that no longer true? I'll stop pointing it out.

If you're implying that I destroyed your edit history, I'll respond as follows: everything I've deleted is on my user page. Which of these articles contained the vanished edit history?

I'm sorry you're taking this so personally! Please understand that AfD is a community process. I utterly lack the ability to unilaterally delete anything you appreciate; my only authority is to raise the question and make my case. --- tqbf 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --El on ka 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]