User talk:Shardok


 * }

Haha, happens all the time. Bob talk 17:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Patrick Seybold


A tag has been placed on Patrick Seybold requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Cind. amuse  11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:PatrickSeybold.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:PatrickSeybold.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Cind. amuse  11:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by security experts
You say that "Critic quotes were based on early reports, thinking that A: It was on the same network. B: It occurred After the original attack and C: That Sony did nothing to prevent it. One critic responding to a rumor.)"

How exactly do you deduct this? The article went up May 3rd, it already has the info that only 900 credit cards are still active. It's recent enough to have taken all the considerations you mention into account. Chris TC01 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see, they make up stories claiming that the credit card info was unencrypted based on no claims stating such, just based on claims not specifically mentioning that it was. They make a big fuss wondering if the hackers were able to change the data with no reason to believe that data has been changed and just to do some random muckraking. Those things instantly make me wonder about how credible their claims can be, but the thing that really makes me certain they were based on early reports is that they linked to said earlier reports in their article, and I bothered to read each of the links and noticed not one of them made note of it being an earlier attack, but instead they all made a big deal thinking it was a recent attack. Shardok (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are more than 900 credit cards involved in this alleged theft. Globally, according to Sony, there are 12.3 million credit cards and 5.6 million credit cards were on file for accounts within the United States. Sony also cites ISO/IEC 27001 as a security protocol for operations. Mnemnoch (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, so all you have is a personal hunch, deciding that Industrygamers is not a credible source. No problem though, I'll add more sources. Chris TC01 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting to further a personal attack, see No_personal_attacks, I was commenting because I commend the help Shardok has provided on the article we're all working together on. Keep up the good work. Mnemnoch (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't make sense of your response Mnemnoch, hehe. But still, the articles used to cite that opinion were all under the impression that the credit card info wasn't encrypted, contrary to countless claims by Sony that it was.
 * I noticed what it was that kept turning me off about that sentence. It was the "Security experts say" part, it was a lot like "Scientists say", so I fixed it by giving the names of the Oh so many (2) security experts that said that.Shardok (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

September 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rebecca Sugar; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''Please see the discussion already on the talk page. The subject herself does not prefer non-gender pronouns.'' Dorsetonian (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Three percenter
I'm not sure what was added by you and what was there from the beginning but about 99% of the information is incorrect. If I could change it and fix it I would. As a three percenter myself it makes me uneasy to see miss information about the group. And id like to get with you to correct the information. Braden welch (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Not my fault at all as I only did a minor change, and that minor change I made was editing out the "needs primary source" citation; as the sources next to that included a CNN link, which is acceptable. Shardok (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)