User talk:Gorgonzilla


 * Archive: /LJS All comments related to vandal LJS and socks
 * Archive: /Merecat All comments related to vandal Merecat and socks
 * Archive: /Misc Misc obsolete comments

Response
No problem with the cleanup, everybody's userpage is a valuable resource here. ;-) I just stummbled across the message on your userpage when I was following a users contributions, so I moved it. Hope I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to do. ;-) Cheers! D G X  23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal blocked
You were correct on page TdF/John316. Confirmed: User:Wombdpsw has been identified as a notorious vandal using many usernames before, such as "Merecat" and "Rex071404". He's been blocked indefinitely. (see userpages or clerk's report) -- ActiveSelective 06:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Sock?
I just found this on this page. Followed up the IP address, only one other contribution today and not on an article I edited. Looks to me as if Merecat or an accomplice is back to his old tricks and this is meant to provide 'evidence' in one of his future attacks under his new nym. --Gorgonzilla 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your test didn't work. Your vandalism has been reverted.  In the future use the sandbox for such nonsense. --138.162.5.8 20:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC
I removed your comments as you put them in the wrong place, you do not get to comment in that area. I also find it interesting that you choose to comment on my RFC even though I have had no contact with you and neither has any of the other users. How did you even find the RFC? -- zero faults  undefined  17:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep you updated. Requests_for_checkuser. I hope you do the responcible thins now that this has been put to bed finally. -- zero faults  undefined  10:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you changed your ISP. So what? Even if you are a different person you are just as obnoxious, just as committed to POV peddling and use exactly the same tactics including the tendentious legalistic justifications. Your approach to the RFC makes it clear that it is only a matter of time before the matter gets to Arbcon. --Gorgonzilla 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you would apologize for your accusations that have been proven false, however I see that will not happen. I do remind you WP:NPA. -- zero faults  undefined  16:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They have not been proven false, all that has been established is that you have worked out how to do sockpuppetry without leaving obvious clues. Your repeated unsubstantiated claims of exhoneration are laughable. --Gorgonzilla 18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest a truce? Gorgon, you can't prove Zero is a sock, and Zero can't prove he is not (can't prove a negative). Instead of beating eachother on the head could you at least accept you have reached a stalemate? Of course, you can continue the sock discussion, but frankly, at this point it is starting to look like a oneway ticket to ArbCom. I don't think that is what we as Wikipedians want. Let's try and work together on this project. This is only a suggestion, but I hope the 2 of you can get past this conflict. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Nescio. I cannot disprove a negative but I have gone out of my way to show according to Wikipedia I am not a sockpuppet. However I am no longer going to argue with you over it, the people who handle sockpuppet claims have spoken, and your opinion will remain what it is no matter what they say. -- zero faults  undefined  19:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I don't really think it makes much difference if Zer0fault's really is a sockpuppet of Rex or not. A bad editor is a bad editor. Regardless of whether or not Zero is a sockpuppet of Rex or merely copycatting Rex's tactics. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * An RfC is about fixing our differences, considering this comment it does not appear as though that is what you were hoping to do by certifying the RfC, so this comment will be noted on it. -- zero faults  undefined  10:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Faith
I offer you a good faith apology about this whole situations escalation, and I think we both owe Nescio a thank you as well for being the cool head in between it. If I said anything to offend you, my deepest apologies, I just did not like the sockpuppet accusations. I wish you happy Wiki-editing. -- zero faults  undefined  23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I am no "nerdowell blocked for good cause". Please note that my first block was for an alleged 3RR violation that was none but done by an admin who was in a conflict of interest and that I later got blocked for "block evasion" by an admin who got desyopped and who missed the point that the "block evasion" was a perfidious attack by two IPs used to throw mud on me by posting with my signature. I am sure you were mislead. What happened is the outcome of the continuous reverts, innuendo and obstruction of users like Zer0faults. 

has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Añoranza 12:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sasquatch blocked you for being rude to the other admins, telling half the story is whats misleading. Reverting their comments on your talk page will be another issue as you are not allowed to remove admin comments I believe. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sasquatch blocked me for a whole week for one single sarcastic comment on the admin who was in a conflict of interest when blocking me for a 3RR violation that was none. Users are allowed to remove comments from their talk pages unless they are warnings. Mind your own business. Añoranza 13:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are being rude. This is my business as you are commenting on something taking place on my RfC. Once again "Sasquatch blocked me for a whole week for one single sarcastic comment on the admin" so this proves that Sasquatch blocked you for being uncivil. --  zero faults   ' '' 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, I thought you were joking about not taking it to your user talk page. The nightmare never ends. The only solution is NOBODY RESPOND TO AÑORANZA. And now, having probably pissed him off, I will take my own advice and not respond to his inevitable rejoinder. Ideogram 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you continue to single me out? This is incivil. Añoranza 15:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of operation names
As you already helped to find a consensus at United States invasion of Panama, please take a look at the general discussions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Añoranza 01:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Mitnick
Hello boy.. Kevin Mitnick is a well know cracker. Inform yourself about the difference between hacker and cracker. Hackers aren't criminals, why should a hacker still be behind bars?.... Torvalds was in jail?! ..... maybe you can understand from yourself description that Kevin Mitnick IS NOT a hacker. You can also read the mitnick's history.. (try to find a objective source...not from noobs or lamers text...)

PS: Reply here, in YOUR discussion page..my IP may change. I'll come here to check.... --82.52.20.129 09:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you there? --82.52.20.129 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hacker is the term used by the criminals and is understood by the public. The term cracker is not, it is only understood by a handful of people. Nobody calls themselves a cracker. -- Gorgonzilla 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok....you are confused...


 * 1) Well, Nobody calls themselves a hacker too! Hacker means something...like: the research of knowledge. If you call yourself "hacker" this means you know ALL! But how is possible know all of all?. Who define himself "hacker" for SURE he isn't a hacker!
 * 2) If journalists are stup*d id*ot this don't means they are right... I know all journalists in all world call hacker=criminals. It's WRONG! and wikipedia like any good encyclopedia MUST try to teach the real meaning of words to people.
 * 3) Real hackers are people like Linus torvalads -- the most common example, or Raymond. If i should write a synonym of hacker, i'll write: PROGRAMMER! And not "security expert" or "computer engineer"(tons of words and zero code!) or any other similarity...
 * 4) Mitnick was a mentally-poor man with the same knowledge of tons of others people. The only differences is that Mitnick have used him knowledge to get the access to other computers (in illegal ways.... yeah like any cracker like act in wrong/illegal ways..)..
 * 5) In the discussion about Kevin Mitnick, i've seen like other people think in my same way....
 * Maybe are you who is wrong? is it possible? or are you infallible? :)
 * I think to be right, because i'm a programmer (but i'm not hacker ;- ) and i know really-really much about -so called- "hacker world"... or underground world.
 * --82.58.19.231 14:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude here is condesending and rude. Please learn to respect other opinions before you try to impose your own. I worked at MIT for two and a half years, I am very well known in the Internet security community. The term used to describe a computer criminal is now hacker. That is what hollywood and the media has decreed. Attempting to reclaim the earlier usage is a futile effort and Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for that project.

The term cracker is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is not a term that will be familiar to readers it is not used even within the field. Mitnick called himself a hacker and that is what he is described as 4 times out of 5 (650K hits on Mitnick hacker vs 120 for Mitnick cracker). --Gorgonzilla 15:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just changed the term to computer criminal which we can both agree on. The Free Kevin groupies will still try to turn this back to hacker. However it is an empirical fact that he pled guilty, was convicted and received a prison sentence of more than a year, thus meeting the empirical definition of criminal. --Gorgonzilla 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah...sorry i was a bit upset and also my english suck (this don't help me..)... Btw, so you work at MIT!? well... this don't mean you are god-like nor an hacker... But there (at MIT) are born some real hacker...eheh ;)
 * important---> I'm really against your text: "Attempting to reclaim the earlier usage is a futile effort and Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for that project.".. It's totally wrong...so -not only- you don't want contribute to teach whats means "hacker" but you are helping to spread the wrong meaing!! Think about .. If you NEVER start to tell to people the real meaning of cracker and hacker; so you will never inform people about the truth meaing of words... "very good job wikipedia you have fail your purpose -- this encyclopedia isn't different from others encyclopedia wrote by computers noobs...".
 * About your edit: for me cracker was better, but i stop complain now, eheh ;)
 * --82.58.19.231 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RfAr involving Zero
Apparently mediation does not improve the current conflict. Since I am at my wits end I have filed a case at ArbCom. This is to notify you should you wish to comment there. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 11:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SPAM.
Hi, did you rember me? i'm the user who start "hacker/cracker" compilan about Kevin Mitnick :D Well, if you are SysOp on Wikipedia, can you delete this page: 1Work ? it's SPAM. I've find the same page on fr.wiki. The page was also insert in it.wiki ... always from the same spammer (a user called Xhtml)... of sure on italian wikipedia we have arledy fix anything and block the page :DD If you aren't SysOp, pelease...send this message to any SysOp that can handle the work. 10x, cya --82.50.26.65 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

MOSS
Your update to Privacy-enhanced Electronic Mail includes the link to MOSS which points to a disambiguation page. I was wondering if any of those selections are appropriate and, if so, if you wouldn't mind picking the right one. If none are appropriate, maybe the link should be removed. Thoughts? —Ksn 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind; I've since discovered that MOSS stands for none on the disambiguation page (at the time) so created a proper MIME Object Security Services page, added a link to the new page from the disambiguation page, and fixed links to the PEM page. —Ksn 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Brian LaMacchia
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Brian LaMacchia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Brian LaMacchia seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Brian LaMacchia, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Nicolaides deletion declined
Clearly absent of nonsense, so does not meet WP:CSD. Even asserts significance, which is a lower standard than notability. Likely notable, considering situation and link to reliable source in article. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes.  Dloh  cierekim  03:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Larry Mattlage
I have nominated Larry Mattlage, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Larry Mattlage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Black Kite 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I merely created a redirect to Cindy Sheehan.

A tag has been placed on Harry Nicolaides, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vh o scythe chatter-sign 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC) (This post moved here from Gorgonzilla's User Page by Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Casey Sheehan
Hello, Gorgonzilla, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Articles for deletion/Casey Sheehan whether the article Casey Sheehan should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Casey Sheehan, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Americablog for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Americablog 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/Americablog & 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. Second Quantization (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)