Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shutterbug (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 22 June 2007 (→Block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

All discussions up to 22 May 2007 have been moved here: User talk:COFS/Archive1

IP Addresses

I find this talk page incredibly intriguing. I have a personal interest in the scientology debate, but that aside let me just clarify for you one or two things.

Firstly, if your network has (as you report) almost 1000 users, your server must be literally state of the art, or you're using multiple servers - thus multiple IPs. Even if you are all running off one server, surely 1000 users will have their bandwidth split across several lines - thus multiple IPs. Finally, even if you're a network of 1000 users who are all operating off 1 server and 1 broadband (DSL, I believe SDSL to work slightly differently for IP assignment) connection, the check sock function (at least has the ability to) check by MAC address, thus narrowing to one computer.

I'd also like to add that the only plausible explanation for your network setup is some sort of filter (imposed by the church of scientology, by any chance?). The following filters do NOT warrant the described network setup, because their policies can be defined by enforced software, which is cheaper and much more efficient. The network load on a 1k client network would be... overwhelming for the best of servers. Anyway, the filters: Spam filter (email) - software is available commercially and open-source to prevent unsolicited emails. Most email browsers come with this pre-installed. Firewall (virus filter) - again, this is available in both hardware and software format, neither needing a 1000 pc network. Spam filter (virus) - most firewalls will block incoming spam that has been created by a virus. Web filter - my very own router has one of these, allbeit a bit basic. You can configure any standard PC/router network to block websites (although some require inputting all websites you want blocking which is time-consuming, there is commercially available software which is much more efficient and again, for home use).

So, you see, I don't understand why you're on a 1000PC network. I'd put it down to a poorly configured workplace network, but you said you weren't at work. Yoda 08:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yoda, I commend your up front acknowledgment and I will follow suit. Unlike yourself, I have no interest in the Scientology debate. Perhaps also unlike yourself, I have a great deal of experience in networks, network administration, internet access, ISP's, BGP routing and hosting services. A user network of over 1000 PC's with a single IP gateway is not uncommon for many large companies. And, although I saw no claim that all 1000 users are simultaneously accessing the internet, even if they were, a single source (outbound) IP would still not be uncommon.

Your suggestion that Multiple IP's are required to share across 'multiple lines' is also incorrect. Multiple servers (gateways) can provide connectivity from multiple upstream ISP's and still all route to a single http gateway (proxy) for web traffic. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a company to have an off-site http proxy, which can be used by multiple company locations. The off-site proxy can have 1gbps connectivity, far in excess of the limited DSL and SDSL services you suggest.

Unless you have specific knowledge of the network you are discussing, then it is a bit uninformed to suggest the limitations you describe or to imply that that the network is poorly configured.

Lsi john 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to say, but I am not on Misplaced Pages to discuss the nature, technology or bandwidth of my internet access (not that I would know much about those things at all) but to edit articles in my area of competence. So if you have a question let me know, otherwise sorry again that I can't make much out of what you wrote. COFS 18:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Spring?

Falling leaves in autumn? Lsi john 03:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Metaphoric for "unimportant because it is so usual that it hurts" or something like that. COFS 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah. ok. It's as significant as saying Grass is Green. Lsi john 03:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ECHR article

I invite you to read the my response to your comments on my talk page, as well as my actual edit. It seems your revert may have been a knee-jerk reaction rather than thought through, and you may wish to self-revert. Best, Really Spooky 11:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 My Mistake

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Church of Scientology. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Misplaced Pages without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please look at my changes before you are blasting around here. Tilman reverted perfectly sourced changes and put text in which is a clearcut WP:POV violation and full of weaselwords (which is another WP violation). COFS 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Its cited. You can't removed unsourced matter because you don't like it. --~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish it would be. But the reference does not say what the article text claims. Please look at it. COFS 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles do not satisfy reliable primary or secondary source requirements. Therefore, the Foster Report article cannot be used as a citation for the claim. Lsi john 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Okay, your revert was right. :-) Thanks! ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 02:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! COFS 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Foster report in Church of Scientology

Simply because you disagree with the conclusions of the Foster report does not mean that it is "non-scientific." (RookZERO 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

The Forster report is not a scientific report, some crystal-balling over three test results is not scientific behavior and those looking have not been scientists. I do not appreciate your superficial approach to this subject. Get briefed, thank you. COFS 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not violate WP:NPA

I give you notice to stop your personal attacks as documented here: Talk:Lee_Baca#Scientology--Fahrenheit451 23:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material without discussion

Please do not delete sourced material without discussion, as you did in . Your failure to assume good faith and remain civil, as demonstrated in your edit comment, is an indicator that you have a conflict of interest on the subject of Scientology. Thank you. SheffieldSteel 19:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not discussing your attempts to ridicule or slander reputable and correct sources. You really should try to understand that this is not a place for anti-Scientology bashings but an encyclopedia. COFS 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No this is the place for NPOV. If verifiable sources say things about Scientology that you don't like, too bad. Do not revert RookZERO's paragraph in the article again either. If you want to dispute it, do it in the talk page. Wikidan829 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the NPOV and I wonder why you are pushing POV edits then. The one Sheffield complains about was a snide remark without any substance and not NPOV while a simple typo was sitting right next to it for weeks and weeks and have not been corrected. So much for correct focus. On the RookZERO edit I might recommend that you are actually researching this matter a little bit and take note that he today reverted the same paragraph the 12th time, against several at least 7 different editors (including me), and most likely the 25th time if you go back in time for a months or so. Now, what are you going to do about him? COFS 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm pushing POV edits? Please explain. Wikidan829 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not intentionally, I am sure. However "do not revert RookZEROs paragraph" means in essence "accept his revert of your edits and his WP:NPA attacks without doing something about it". That's why I invite you to take a look. The paragraph was changed and stable until Rook started the revert-game a week or so ago. COFS 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How is that POV pushing? His edit is completely legitimate. Just because it does not coincide with your view, doesn't mean that it's invalid. I'm sorry but that's what NPOV is all about. Please join the discussion about this on the talk page. Wikidan829 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Being slandered

Hey COFS, you are stalked by friend Sheffield, here. Got the better arguments, didn't you. Doesn't stand a debate, this "editor".Misou 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is somewhat of a poor show. If I just could get to actually improve these articles... COFS 02:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, some glitter for you

		The Purple Heart
		I, Misou, award this barnstar to COFS for enduring flack and uncivil behaviour while being a good editor and making valued contributions to the project. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Your work here is appreciated by the community. Rock on! Misou 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Scientology

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Chaser - T 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Please enforce this on the other guys too. A "war" usually has two sides and I somehow miss the enforcement for "other side". This might be because they are 5-10 people sharing doing reverts or covert reverts with some minor changes. Please have a look at it, thank you. COFS 19:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened here?

I'm gone for a few weeks and whole Scientology pages did a total make over. How that happened? I was trying to do exactly that and I was blown out in little pieces, that's why I left. Bravehartbear 05:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back. Well, what happened is that with some insistence the real story about Scientology found its way in the Scientology article and the controversy about the Church of Scientology found its way at least in the related sections of the article. I see this as putting the right data in the right sections, but as you know almost any changes in those dominated articles create some noise and get plenty of anti-editors active to boot out their perceived "opposition". Happens right now, here. COFS 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember me. There are still some comments there that I made in the talk page. Bravehartbear 05:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reading, so a few Scientologist got togueter and started to fight the good fight. Where was the back up when I needed it. Ohh I'm happy. Bravehartbear 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the ignorance is still there and the "boo-boo, smear the Scientologists" tactics as well. As long as some neutral guys actually look what's happening there is hope for those articles actually being more than just some smeary propaganda pieces of "critics" but real information. COFS 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Block

For repeated edit warring along with Misou I've blocked you both for 24 hours. lists Misou as a confirmed sockpuppet. And no, I don't care whether you are sockpuppets or meatpuppers. Repeated edit warring of this sort removing well-sourced information is unacceptable. To then have your meatpuppet give you an award takes a level of chutzpah that I find simply shocking. JoshuaZ 16:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not even closely related and you know that. There is no sock- or meatpuppet, we simply use the same shared IP. Or didn't you read the related discussion from several months ago? Your action just effectively took me out of a community discussion about myself where I now can't edit or respond to what is said about me. I understand your viewpoint but why do I get punished as a received of some award I did not ask for? Is that a way to get blocked now? Sorry to say but this procedure is not right. COFS 16:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=see above. This is midst consideration and you just cut off my possibility to respond to the undue allegations on the community boards (see above). |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=see above. This is midst consideration and you just cut off my possibility to respond to the undue allegations on the community boards (see above). |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=see above. This is midst consideration and you just cut off my possibility to respond to the undue allegations on the community boards (see above). |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of COFS
• Requests for unblock