User talk:BruceDavidWilner

Welcome
Thank you for registering an account, Mr. Wilner. As you probably know, it is difficult for me, like most people, to put any trust in the claims of complete strangers on the Internet. As an undergraduate student in computer science, I greatly respect your knowledge and contributions to the field of computer security. However, you are also correct that I find your attitude arrogant, dismissive and overbearing. I think that someone with your expertise could be a very valuable contributor to this website, much more so than I can. Again, I advise you that the best way to make sure that your voice is heard is to interact with the community in a civil and professional manner, consistent with common-sense guidelines for editing a user-contributed encyclopedia. Otherwise, it is likely that many editors will conclude that your disruption of the community (through edit wars, personal attacks, and insistent insertion of material that lacks a neutral, encyclopedic tone) outweighs your knowledge and experience. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My God, I've awakened a Great Old One. Wikipedia is doomed.
 * But seriously, I sincerely hope that you are able to perform some serious upgrades on computer security content. Just try not to be so insufferably smug, and people will hate you less. Huntthetroll (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I meant "Great Old One" as in "mind-shattering eldritch abomination whose very existence is something man was never meant to know." But if you prefer to think it means "old fart," I won't dissuade you. Huntthetroll (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Gatch gereftani for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gatch gereftani is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gatch gereftani (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TerriersFan (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about you on AN/I
Here is a discussion to which you might wish to contribute. -- UKoch (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 Year for Same as 50.128.184.140 per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UKoch&diff=next&oldid=596985392 and behavioral evidence, blocking to match IPs block. Had I known at the time, I would indef blocked this account instead.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  17:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One-year block and improperly formed unblock
(I would've put double curly braces around the 'unblock' keyword, but GOK how your software will interpret that: I can't be sure where the macro replacement in situ is performed vice the lexical analysis and the parsing and whether such macros ["templates" in your terminology] are interwoven with more sophisticated semantics such as symbol tables. It's been decades since I taught postgraduate compiler theory.)

In actuality, I wasn't at all interested in effecting an unblock request. I invite you to have as much fun as you wish. What I was actually seeking&#151;though I fear I'm seeking in the wrong place&#151;was an adult response to my extremely legitimate accusations about inconsistency of enforcement; profound vanillaness of, not only contributions, but also contributions that you pretend to solicit from others on topics that are controversial from the word go; and such.

(I have read recently [and I don't think it was from anyone as conservative as, say, George Will] that even American universities [God help us!] now have "codes of spoken propriety" that stand in stark contrast to the intellectual ferment&#151;articulated via, well, verbal articulation&#151;that college supposedly stands solely to elicit: no, one must say only those things that are "inoffensive" to others, yea, a nation of zombies we must be [unless we echo our ultra-left-wing professors' assorted nonsenses].)

My request for an adult response in the manner of what's-his-name still stands. Oh, wait! I remember: he once expressed pride (a sin in your book, no doubt, since it is not vanilla) that the article he authored on Union City High School was appointed "good article" or some such Weakipedia award. (I couldn't resist the, admittedly, incredibly cheap paronomastic shot Weakipedia: I'm sure it's been posited N times already!)

Inviting people to request an unblock: LOL! I am reminded of an adventure suffered (well, not really) by a physician friend of mine. He was placed on "probation" in Maryland (which, essentially, restricted nothing) for some paper violation; then, a few months before expiry of the order, he was invited to solicit reconsideration. (The probation, as I recall, had to do with insufficient documentation of diagnoses that underlay his assignment of weak [Schedules C-IV and C-III] narcotics.) The "appeal" was basically a joke, with the "appeals board," as it were, chaired by a twentysomething who knew about narcotics what Dr. Steinberg knew about the syntax of australopithecine utterances. That's what I suspect your "appeals" process will resemble, and if your standards enforcement consists of 10% taking a legitimate stance against occasional "vandalism" (typically motivated by your ceaseless desire to irritate any contributor to the breaking point, which some [Asbjørnsen and Moe, at any rate!] could consider trolling) and 90% unwillingness even to attempt to defend the frankly indefensible&#151;as it surely appears to (and I apologize for the length of this sentence)&#151;then why would I waste my time arguing with people who, duly acquired formal degrees notwithstanding, are entirely unable to formulate and defend original opinions?

Or, why not provide actual e-mail addresses so that one can have an appropriate conversation with one or more of you cowards (oh, I guess you find that terminology "obscene" and constitutive of a "block-worthy" offense and such)? I thought it was cowardly enough when would-be authorities offer "accessibility" via Twitter or Facebook (plus a demon that automatically deletes any content posted thereto) in the manner that a smart-mouthed six-year-old provides accessibility to his kickable ass by hiding behind mommy. (BTW, I await a gratuitous, pseudo-learned lecture from one of your "senior" computer science editors on the "propriety" of the spelling 'daemon' by those who don't know the difference between a putative mythological reference and a local colouring of English orthography.)

BruceDavidWilner (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Unblock denied. Your nasty attitude confirms that the blocking admin was corrent in the interpretation of things. You are clearly using more than one account and behaving poorly. Chillum 14:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)