User talk:Beachy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Independent Institute

Please tell us who funds the Independent Institute? You do know right? I'll give you a clue. Their name starts with M, ends in t and has icrosof in the middle. Do you know who it is?  :) AlistairMcMillan 01:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh, you ever heard of ProComp - the legal lobbying body that was set up by most of Microsofts commercial competitors to attempt to crush the company in court? Yep, it works both ways, and there's certainly more negative effort directed toward MS than outward from it, that's for sure.
Cool. So are you saying you are going to insert ProComp quotes to balance out your Independent Institute quotes? AlistairMcMillan 01:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that much of the anti-MS POV in the IE article comes from groups with an agenda against IE or Microsoft. What was in that II quote made perfect sense, whatever your feelings.
Yeah no one objects to that and if all that Microsoft did was that, then no-one (credible) would have objected to them either. The problem was Microsoft weren't just including IE with Windows. Have you read through the Judge's Findings of Fact? That quote doesn't even come close to discussing what Microsoft were actually doing. AlistairMcMillan 02:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Hacking Officer

You know what, you want it you got it. If that'll get you to shut up about the bloody quote, then cool leave it in. AlistairMcMillan 18:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you --Beachy 18:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Service Pack 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mozilla_Firefox#Security-Secunia_reports AlistairMcMillan 19:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oops. You're right, seven instead of eight. I was forgetting to subtract that one that I'm not sure about. AlistairMcMillan 20:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alistair McMillan

Saw your comment in the Mozilla Firefox edit history. "Why is Alistair obsessively removing information about SP2..." You know that money the Firefox people were collecting for the NYT advert, I've heard they are slipping him $100 for every mention of SP2 that he reverts. 217.46.166.234 15:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A humble request

I humbly request that you attempt to adhere to the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. By this request, I intend neither animosity nor accusation.

MIT Trekkie 18:18, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just out of interest, was there any particular reason for you providing me with this information? If you are referring to my deletion of SP2 FUD on the Internet Explorer page, remember there are two sides to an edit-war. I believe I have been civil throughout. Despite Alistair referring to me personally as a "cheerleader" and suchlike I have never made a deliberate personal attack myself --Beachy 18:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was referring not to any single event, so much as to a general trend of behavior. I have no interest in taking sides or accusing anyone of being a "cheerleader" or anything of that nature. I would simply prefer that all actions be taken to avoid unnecessary prolonged conflict, but rather to constructively create better articles. MIT Trekkie 18:44, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) P.S. I wish the same of Alistair, that he would refrain from personal attacks, and may choose to give him a similar request.
I second that. Beachy, even after taking a few month break, you has not improved. Be nice to others, and others will be nice to you. Please admit your mistakes and biases. --minghong 18:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I have admitted my mistakes in the past. As for biases, hah! Don't be such a hypocrite when your edits, talk page and actions on SFX all scream bias --Beachy 18:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
However you didn't admit your biases. A pro-IE view doesn't necessary be evil. Please edit based on facts, not your point of view (e.g. SFX is zealous). --minghong 18:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Explorer

Just to clear things up.

My "friend with the laptop" is Paul Thurott, a guy in the states who has been writing about Microsoft for ages. For a few professional magazines and now for a bunch of websites. He has a few books published about Microsoft products. He is in no way my friend, I actually really dislike the guy's opinions quite a lot, because he is so blinded by his love for Microsoft. What you were supposed to get from the quote, was that this guy who some of the time pretty much seems to want to marry Bill Gates and have his kids, was admitting that a machine of his with SP2 RC1 got infected with spyware and more specifically that he had to wipe the drive and re-install everything from scratch. Which I believe actually shows how lame he is, but never mind...

"my experience" is my job. I personally use Macs. I used Microsoft operating systems from DOS 2.something to Windows XP. Then Mac OS X came out and I switched. The machines I was talking about were my clients machines, not mine. I run Windows XP on one machine that I only ever use to play games (perhaps once a month) or to test something out for a client (perhaps two or three times a month). I haven't had any problems running Windows XP at all.

I totally agree SP2 is a great step forward for Microsoft. I have not disputed that anywhere. The idea I have been disputing is that, contrary to some of your edits, SP2 hasn't solved all the security problems in Windows.

Well I have never said that SP2 is perfect, or that SP2 resolves all issues now and forever. I simply think that we should recognise the significance of SP2 and the fact it is far-reaching and comprehensive, and not to be sneered at. --Beachy 21:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Registry quotes I couldn't care less about. In my opinion the Register is the News of the World of the tech news industry, but whatever. If you think they are credible... AlistairMcMillan 20:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uhh yup, just as credible, if not more so, than Maifrett. At least The Register presents opinions for and against Microsoft, and believe me I've seen some strong opinions against IE on there! --Beachy 21:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
BTW About your problems with Firefox... I wasn't suggest for a second my experiences should be on the IE page. I was just trying to explain my point of view. And also I'm willing to bet that was a beta version that had chrome problems, not 1.0. AlistairMcMillan 20:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually my experience was with the 1.0PR "stable" release. --Beachy 21:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
1.0PR is not a stable release. It was just a public release. --minghong 10:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm on vacation for the next two weeks. Stay vigilant in the Internet Explorer article! Don't let anyone expand that Criticisms section. — mjb 15:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Send reinforcements! :-) --Beachy 20:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ActiveX, BHO and XPI

You said in a recent edit comment: The last time you reverted my info, you said it was because XPI were more like Browser Helper Objects than XPI. When I re-added the info, I tried to compromise by adding this in - and again you revert. However if you go back and check your actual edit, you'll find you said nothing of the sort.

This extended level of access is also granted to downloadable XPI components in Mozilla Firefox, which are browser helper objects, loading automatically on browser startup.

You did not say "XPIs are like BHOs" you said "XPIs are BHOs". It's pretty damn clear from your edits that you don't have the first clue what BHOs are. AlistairMcMillan 20:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bully for you! I only added the BHO reference because you mentioned it in this context when revoking my original addition. The original Wikipedia entry on BHO's (before you edited it) made no reference to BHO's being specific to IE. In fact extensions are almost identical to BHO's - I hardly think I was being subversive by making that equivalence. As ususal, you use a slip like that to attempt to discredit me. People will rapidly tire of the both of us if you continue to be so aggressive with your comments and edits. --Beachy 22:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your only proving how little you know about the subject. The original entry on BHOs was either wrong or just being too vague. BHOs are IE only. Please go read up on BHOs elsewhere (which you obviously couldn't be arsed to do before or we wouldn't be having this discussion) if you think my edits to Browser Helper Object are wrong. And your right, Firefox extensions (or XPIs) are almost identical to BHOs. The thing you seem to be missing is that BHOs and ActiveX controls are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. You do get that right? AlistairMcMillan 22:49, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
BHO's are IE-only, fine - the only time I ever 'disputed' this was when I wrongly said XPIs are BHO's. So, does this slip mean you can remove any mention of XPI from the COM/ActiveX section? I don't think so. --Beachy 23:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BHOs

Plain and simple, does IE display a warning when a BHO is installed? Plain and simple answer, NO. That is one of the reasons that Microsoft added the Add-On Manager with SP2 and purchased GIANT's AntiSpyware software. As I'm sure you are aware, AntiSpyware DOES display a warning when a BHO attempts to install on someone's machine.

The specific vector you mention is only one or MANY ways for a BHO to get installed on someone's machine. AlistairMcMillan 21:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW Your tech journal was a hell of a lot more interesting before you developed your Firefox obsession. Do you realise your last 16 posts have all been focussed on IE/Firefox and browsers in general? AlistairMcMillan 22:02, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What other ways can a BHO be installed on a user's machine (in particular, without a prompt)?
My last posts have focused on browser issues, yes. I admit, I have an obsessive streak in my character. I have some little projects on the go and hopefully they will make more interesting reading when I write about them in the tech journal --Beachy 23:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What other ways???
* Someone downloads some other program that installs a BHO (e.g. Morpheus).
* Someone download a file from a p2p network, thinking it is Britney Spear's latest album, when in reality it is a BHO.
* Someone receives a BHO as an email attachment and automatically runs it because they don't know better.
* Installing software from a third-party CD, from a company that is otherwise trust-worthy.
* Installing software from one of those useless crap CDs that you get when you sign up with an ISP.
* etc etc etc
Internet Explorer does not warn you before installing a new BHO. It (at least IE on XP SP2) may warn you about certain vectors, for example the pop-ups that install BHOs or ActiveX controls that install BHO, but in both cases it is not warning you about the BHO installation, it is warning you about the pop-up and ActiveX control. And that leaves aside all the other possible vectors. Right now IIRC Internet Explorer will quite happily and quite quietly install any BHO you asking it without question. And a lot of the time without you even being aware that anything happened.
If you really don't believe me I think I probably have a couple sitting around somewhere that I saved from someone's machine. I could email you a copy and you can try for yourself.  :) AlistairMcMillan 01:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response. You have clarified what I originally supposed. Although BHO's can be silently installed, they cannot be silently installed from the web - they require other downloaded/acquired software as a "vector" (as you put it). In which case the comparison with XPI's ("unlike the situation with BHOs in Internet Explorer, the user is prompted before an XPI installer is executed") is moot, right? If you're going to take into account the actions of software already downloaded / acquired by the user themselves, then it hardly seems to suggest a security hole in the browser. Whilst I understand IE opens a rich API to BHO's, I'm sure it would be equally easy for a third-party app to manipulate the chrome / XUL files behind Firefox and therefore have the same effect as BHO spyware does on IE. Do you agree? --Beachy 03:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not really no. You keep talking as if direct download from the Internet is the only way that people are likely to get a BHO installed. People get spyware from a great number of sources, not just downloads from dodgy web pages. And I'm not sure I'm being clear about BHO installation, it doesn't depend on third-party software.
If you have a BHO installer sitting on your desktop and you double-click on it, Windows will automatically install it. Since BHOs are basically just DLL files, you don't even require an instance of Internet Explorer to be running for this to work and it can all happen quietly in the background with zero feedback. Aside from perhaps hearing your hard drive spring to life, there may be no indication that anything happened.
If you have an XPI sitting on your desktop and you double-click on it, Windows won't have a clue what to do with it and will pop up the "Windows cannot open this file" "Windows needs to know what program created it" prompt. Then if you go to the trouble of telling it to open the XPI with Firefox, an instance of Firefox opens up and the usual Software Installation dialog opens with "Malicious software can damage your computer or violate your privacy" and "You should only install software from sources that you trust" in bold.
Do you see the difference? Simply, both browser developers provide a method to extend their browser. Microsoft make it incredibly simple to extend your browser, even making it possible to do it without even realising anything has happened. Mozilla make it relatively easy, although they put enough of a roadblock in the way that, at the very least, you are clear what you are doing and you are aware that something has happened. AlistairMcMillan 07:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But really, both Firefox and IE allow malware to potentially be downloaded from the web. Both display a warning beforehand. With full access to the filesystem, surely it would be equally easy for malware to affect both IE and Firefox from the inside. After all, an XPI installer just copies some files into the extensions directory within the user's profile. The only difference is that IE now has a mechanism to detect such activity, and Firefox doesn't.
If, on the other hand, BHO's can install themselves silently from a webpage without user intervention, then that would clearly be cause for alarm, and would be a significant hole in IE worth mentioning in this context. --Beachy 15:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you are so desperate to defend IE that you aren't even listening.

  1. Go and download some program that includes a BHO. Yahoo Messenger used to include one, not sure if it does now. Morpheus used to include one, not sure if it does now. I'm sure you are capable if you really try, of finding one.
  2. Run the installer. Watch in stupefied amazement as Windows quite happily installs a BHO in IE without a single bloody warning.
  3. Realise the difference between XPIs (WHICH ALWAYS WARN YOU) and BHOs (WHICH NEVER NEVER NEVER ABSOLUTELY F'ING NEVER WARN YOU).

AlistairMcMillan 15:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, calm down. Secondly you have just reiterated my point. 3rd party software must be installed first. And what happens when you download (potentially malicious) 3rd-party software in IE? You get a warning. What happens when you download a (potentially malicious) XPI installer in Firefox? You get a warning. See? If dumbasses download malicious software in the shape of a P2P client / toolbar / 1000 new smilies or whatever, they deserve every bit of spyware they get. My point is that you shouldn't try to suggest that BHO's can be silently and directly installed from the web - this is simply not the case. I will put this discussion in the IE talk page --Beachy 15:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What about a digitally signed third-party exe? You'll only get a download dialog (not a warning). And what about the Microsoft Office which install several buttons on IE? I don't think you'll see a warning when installing Office... --Minghong 16:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're re-stating what's already been said. Third party programs can install stuff in IE. Webpages cannot. Beachy 17:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay let's say you were exactly right there (which I'm not certain you are), but how... in what way is that okay? In what way is that not a problem? AlistairMcMillan 17:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You may consider it a problem that BHO's can be installed by 3rd-party apps. What I am trying to do is prevent insinuations on the IE article that BHO's can install themselves from webpages, which would be a significant problem if it were the case. Beachy 17:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chris you need to actually sit down, take a deep breath and think about what you are doing. Do you actually understand the subject that you are talking about. Why are you so focussed on BHOs that are installed automatically through web pages? There are hundreds of different ways that BHOs can be installed. All the problems that people have with BHOs aren't all because of ActiveX installation. Is the reason you are so focussed on ActiveX installation because that is the only vector that Microsoft have seen fit to block? Are you so desperate to defend them that you focus on that one fix, to the exclusion of every other just as viable, just as dangerous source of BHOs? AlistairMcMillan 18:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "focussed on BHOs that are installed automatically through web pages." I'm focussed on demonstrating that they do not and have never existed. --Beachy 23:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
You really want to renew this old argument? AlistairMcMillan 23:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
It needn't be an argument. Just admit that BHO's cannot be silently and automatically installed from a webpage. --Beachy 23:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
... in XP SP2. However on Windows XP SP1, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Me, Windows 98 and Windows 95 they can. Assuming of course that no-one finds any more bugs in IE XP SP2. AlistairMcMillan 23:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I think you're confusing "insecurity by design" with "insecurity by exploitation." The present version of Firefox will run any executable file from any website due to an exploit. Would you use this fact to criticise its use of the chrome directory sandbox, or the privileged JavaScript features? --Beachy 00:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Please remember Chris, I use Macs. I don't use Firefox and to be honest don't really care about it that much. While this may be a big IE vs. FF fight for you, I just want Microsoft to improve IE. I don't care which browser people use. AlistairMcMillan 01:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I want MS to improve IE too, I use Macs too, and (obviously) care little for Firefox. I'm simply using it to put IE's situation in a reasonable context. --Beachy 01:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
"they do not and have never existed" What does not exist? BHOs that silently install themselves from the web? AlistairMcMillan 01:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, by design, IE does not allow BHO's to silently install themselves from webpages. You talk as if the BHO feature is inherently insecure. From what I've seen this is simply not the case. You talk about vectors that are completely unrelated to the BHO functionality built into IE. Vectors like P2P downloads, email attachments etc. Malicious software coming through such vectors could easily perform much more destructive operations on a user's PC than receive a few API calls from a web browser.
Noone criticises any other browser for exposing their API, do they?
It's irritating to see the BHO section used to launch more cheap shots at the design of IE in the Wikipedia article. Do you see what I mean? --Beachy 01:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I need to do some checking and get back to you on this. AlistairMcMillan 18:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "I'm outta here"

Don't forget to update your userpage.  :) AlistairMcMillan 21:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Did you miss me? :-) --Beachy 22:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not even sure if I've fully recovered from our previous bouts yet. AlistairMcMillan 22:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
If you're still up for debating the legitamacy of MS or IE I promise you that you won't ever recover from our next bout. --Beachy 23:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theories

If you think EEE is a conspiracy theory you might want to read Breaking Windows by David Banks. AlistairMcMillan 21:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have just looked at this overview of the book and it looks like a fascinating read. I will definitely get hold of a copy. --Beachy 22:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Update

I wasn't disputing that removing IE disabled WU, I just wasn't sure what the formatting was about. AlistairMcMillan 01:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The formatting was designed to emphasise the important point that removing IE will have negative impacts on Windows --Beachy 01:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Okay. But please remember we are not here to give people advice on how to run their computers. Wikipedia is not IT support. AlistairMcMillan 01:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
In that case the 'Removing Internet Explorer' section should be removed. Would you like to do this, or shall I? And another thing - are you a fellow insomniac? :-) --Beachy 02:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The Removing IE section does not say "you should remove IE" it says "some people think it is a good idea to remove IE". Anyway I don't really like the remove IE stuff either, although I don't want it completely removed. I've reduced the remove IE stuff to a summary and added a link to Integration of Internet Explorer and Windows, so that at least we don't have that remove IE stuff on the main IE page, so please register a KEEP vote here Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Integration of Internet Explorer and Windows or the remove IE stuff will likely get restored on Internet Explorer. And yes, from the timing of some of my edits it's pretty clear, my name is Alistair McMillan and I am an insomniac. :) AlistairMcMillan 18:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IE security concerns

You can ignore this if you want, but...

Don't know if you'll remember but I mentioned before that I spend all day fixing/building/whatever Windows machines for people. A good percentage of this time is finding out why people can no longer access websites ("Mah In'er-net is broken!"), why their machines are grinding away when they haven't even started doing anything, why they are getting pop up adverts constantly the minute they start their machines... I've seen machines that had literally thousands of copies of viruses or worms on their hard drives...

Anyway my point. You keep saying things that make it seem like you think the current security brouhaha surrounding Microsoft is just drummed up by Firefox or OSS advocates. All of the people whose computers I fix... none of them have even heard of Firefox or OSS. Many of them couldn't even tell you what a web browser is, far less which one they use every day. They aren't having problems with their computers because they read about it in some magazine article. AlistairMcMillan 22:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. I have also seen machines infested with spyware. It's usually because the users deliberately downloaded every stupid "1000 free smilies" or "top search toolbar" that blinked invitingly at them. It's not necessarily through any security flaw in IE. With non-technical users this indiscriminate downloading is a real problem. A problem that always get associated with Microsoft / Windows / IE, because MS have been successful in bringing the Internet to the masses. Why does Firefox not suffer from this problem? Because the vast majority of Firefox users are technically sound, and aware of spyware/malware etc. --Beachy 15:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Why not Firefox? Because only whitelisted sites can install software (easily). --minghong 19:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I can download a .exe file just as easily in Firefox as I can in IE. That was my point --Beachy 21:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Yup. And most patches are available to SP2 only, which is unfair to users of Windows 2000 (for example). Not every one are using XP. So there are many users which are still in danger. --minghong 07:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not anti-Firefox and I'm not pro-IE.

So now you're doing comedy?  :) AlistairMcMillan 21:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oi! --Beachy 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IeFirefoxGraph.gif has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:IeFirefoxGraph.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Mozilla Firefox

Quit doing this. If you don't like how the article is, discuss it on the talk page. Don't go lighting fires. You added that bit to the IE article knowing it would be taken out so you could do the same for the Firefox article. If you have gripes, discuss them like a reasonable person. Don't resort some kiddy games. You're more mature than that.--Jtalledo (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have gripes with my edits then feel free to discuss them on the Talk page before reverting them. I'm sick of the double standards around here. You're damned right I knew it would be taken out of the IE article. And it SHOULD be taken out of the Firefox article for the SAME reasons. I thought it would be nice for an OSS fan to provide the rationale, that's all. --Beachy 01:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I am discussing them on your talk page. You didn't need to add that bit to IE to prove your point, but no, you did. You made the change first. If you're sick of the "double standards" here, don't use edits to the articles to prove your point. It hurts the content of this site. You don't think other users have felt the same way with edits to articles? Of course they do. But most of them don't let the quality articles suffer just to make their points. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Reasonable discussion with zealots like Minghong rarely yields anything on this site. OSS fans seem to have so much spare time and emotional attachment to their mascot software. NPOVing these articles requires novel ways of proving the hypocrisy of a POV argument. Oh, and the quality of the IE article hardly suffered, since the "contentious" edit was reverted quickly --Beachy 02:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. FireFox 21:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ian13ID:540053 21:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You and User:FireFox are both 15 years old, both based in the UK, and both fans of Firefox. Both reverting my edits at the same time. Wanna play games? --Beachy 21:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you in accordance with the three revert rule. Also please do not make what could be seen as prejudiced comments in edit summaries: "Do we think it's coincidence that lan13 is 15 years old, from the UK and a Firefox fan -- just like User:FireFox? Wouldn't be calling on the good squad would you, FF?" - Do you think that it matters that I am 15 years old? Does that make me a worse editor? What does it matter that I'm from the UK - what does that matter at all? If you can find any evidence that I am asking people to revert your edits, then tell me, please, and I'll remove your block. Gooday, FireFox 21:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the realisation that the administration of a supposedly neutral encyclopaedia has an agenda. It's sad. You're really into Firefox - so much so that you made it your username. And you blocked someone who was trying to trying to maintain an NPOV flavour in the Firefox article. I think things are becoming clear.
And by the way, there was no prejudice in my comments about your age - I was merely commenting on your very obvious, and somewhat dubious similarities with lan13. A little paranoid, are we? --Beachy 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Not paranoid at all... what should I be paranoid about? Yes, I like Mozilla Firefox, but not so much so that I become biased when editing articles. Yes me and Ian13 are both 15. Yes and Ian13 are both from the UK. Yes me and Ian13 both prefer Firefox. But that is proving what? There are probably thousands of people in the UK who also fit those criteria. I blocked you because you violated the three revert rule, no other reason. You may be interested to see my comment left at Talk:Mozilla Firefox... It was left a while ago, stating that I am no longer going to be reverting the change as it is up to the editors if the link is shown or not. From now on I'm going to look for further violations of the three revert rule only. Finally it may be of interest to you that in actual fact, I told Ian13 not to revert the page for a third time, after SarekOfVulcan changed the text again. Regards, FireFox 22:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well hopefully you'll find another buddy who's up, and will be able to remove the link without reaching 3 reversions? By the way, I made a typo earlier -- it should have been "goon squad" Beachy 22:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I've told you before, I'll tell you again. I am no longer interested in removing the link. Editors may remove it or re-add it as they wish. Ah... goon squad eh? Please read WP:NPA before you go too far. And you may be interested to know that editors are allowed to revert 3 times, but not more. You reverted 5 times - I gave you one last chance with your 4th reversion, but you didn't take it so I blocked you. FireFox 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You continue to hide behind the rulebook. Let's get to the fact of the matter. An edit war has two sides. You blocked the side you personally disagreed with. Beachy 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
An edit war may have more than 2 sides. In this case it did. Those who wanted the link as an external link, those who wanted it included in the main article and those who didn't want it there. Also, those who were neutral and those who followed a general consensus which is what I did. Do you think if I really cared about the link now that I woudn't have reverted it back, because I still have one more edit left before I violate the 3RR? I did not, therefore, block the side I personally disagreed with. You and only you violated a Wikipedia policy so you and only you got blocked. If I had gone to WP:AN/3 which is for reporting violations of the three revert rule instead of blocking you myself, then you would have got exactly the same response from them... a 24 hour block. Additionally, take someone on "my side" i.e. an editor reverting the same changes like me. For this example take Ian13. If he had broken the 3RR as well, then I would have blocked him as well. It does not matter whose side I'm "on", it comes down to me acting by policy and that is what I did. FireFox 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
If you want to continue this discussion, I am happy to reply to any further questions in 12 hours, as I need some sleep. Thanks, FireFox 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, explain this to me. If all you wanted to do was "go with the concensus" why did you edit at all? Why not just let the general consensus do the editing? When you make an edit, you take a stance. If you trust the consensus, then you don't need to get involved. Beachy 23:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I'll try to answer this as simply as possible. I'm sure during your time at Wikipedia you've come across articles for deletion. More often than not, there is a general concensus to keep the article after about three days of the article being up for deletion. If everyone just sat there, and waited for the keep votes to keep flooding in, the debate will never be closed. If I saw on an article for deletion page, that after 2 days there were 2 delete votes and 15 support votes, then I'm going to follow the concensus, close the debate and keep the article, no matter what I feel about the article. I'm not going to sit there and wait for someone else to close the article, because if everyone did that nothing would ever get done. FireFox 11:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Your example seems completely irrelevant. Of course if it's 15 vs 2 for deletion, then as an administrator you ought to delete it. However, what I am referring to are your edits of the Firefox article, reverting a link. You said you don't want to take a stance, but in jumping in and performing an edit you are taking a stance. This is not a case of "speeding up" any kind of process - you are actively aiding one side of a debate based on your own personal opinion. Anyway, we're not getting anywhere with this discussion. Your behaviour has diminished my confidence in the neutrality of Wikipedia administration and I plan to let others know about this. Beachy 13:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That's absolutely fine by me, you go ahead and let others know about it. What you've said just then makes it sound like you think Administrators don't have the right to have an opinion. It makes it sound like you think Administrators aren't allowed to have a point of view. It makes it sound like you think Administrators aren't allowed to express their personal opinion. Of course they are, they're all just like normal editors who have successfully applied for adminship. You go ahead and complain about me, I don't see anything I've done wrong. I have not used my admin powers to get my own way, I have not abused them. I blocked you for violation of the three revert rule, which, looking back maybe I should have got another admin to do for me. But, I have not abused my admin tools, I have not broken any policy, but am prepared to reply to continue to explain my actions to whoever it may concern if you decide to "let others know about this". Thanks, FireFox 13:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I will be happy to unblock you after serving 3/4 of your block or there abouts. So, at about 3.30 (UTC) if you agree. If I don't hear from you, then you'll remain blocked until your block runs out automatically. You will find some harsher admins than me, I can assure you. FireFox 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Windsurfing.jpg

Hi, do you know perchance why your excellent picture Image:Windsurfing.jpg was deleted? Windsurfing now stands without a decent picture of blasting. Alga 01:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web 3.0

I see you're making yourself useful in your customary manner. Artw 02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD of Sandbox Effect

[edit] AfD nomination of Sandbox Effect

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sandbox Effect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandbox Effect. Thank you.

note: page is actually at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandbox_Effect_(2nd_nomination). --Thinboy00 @45, i.e. 00:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)