User talk:Xtempore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't vandalize pages, e.g. MIDletPascal. Herostratus 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also not a great idea to remove warnings from your talk page, people might get the wrong impression of what you're about. If you don't want warnings on your talk page, the best solution is to not vandalize pages. Herostratus 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to talk about the virus warning for MIDletPascal. I just scanned the full MidletPascal directory with AVG and nothing wrong was found. AVG is updated dayly.

Also, anti-virus software are not fault-proof. I think it´s possible you were mistakenly alarmed by a false positive. I´ve seen reports of anti-virus software report as positive software just compiled, where nothing harmful is inside. The company that supports MIDletPascal can be sued if it really has a virus. Until then, my AVG didn´t find anything wrong with it. I installed MIDLetPascal over a year ago and nothing strange happened in my computer.

Software generated with it always worked perfectly on phones. Again, I find it unlike someone would produce a extremely complex piece of code like this Pascal to Java Bytecode compiler, sell it, and then add a virus inside. --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus - I did not "vandalize" a page. I provided important information to warn users about this potential threat.

Even if you saw fit to remove the text from the main page - you had no right to remove my comments from the discussion page. You are allowed to respond to them, but deleting them altogether is overstepping the bounds.

Frankly the page is of a very questionable anyway. At present it seems to be off the air. Coincidence? I think not.

Symantec are the most respected anti-virus company in the world. I used to use AVG too, until it failed to block a very damaging virus. I am waiting for the page to come back online so that I can get Symantec to investigate - but I bet by the time it comes back up it'll be remarkably virus free (at least for a little while).

Furthermore I seriously doubt this page is even valid for Wikipedia. It is essentially just advertising a product. It is not in any way notable, and not encyclopaedic. If you suggested it for inclusion in Britannica they wouldn't even dignify the request with a response.

I used to think that Wikipedia was a great tool that was going to change the world of information, but finding such questionable pages, and then having my well-meaning warnings unceremoniously deleted makes me realise it will no doubt never live up to its potential.

I noticed that your own page has been "vandalised" a number of times - Did you ever stop to wonder why?

Note to Felipe:

Midlet Pascal is not sold - it is free. I can't imagine why anyone would go to the trouble of writing viruses, but let's face it people do! And this one in particular could actually generate a lot of money for the person who wrote it because it causes the mobile phone to call premium rate numbers. Xtempore 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is online again. And yes, it is sold. Here is the link: http://www.midletpascal.com/purchase.php

There is also a free version, like many other products.

About the comments on Britannica, Wikipedia is not made of paper, so we don´t have the same constrains as they do. Wikipedia has articles about software development tools, and yes, they are valid articles.

About Symantec, do you consider that they anti-virus never gives false alarms?

Sir, I am trying to respond politely, but your comments are as absurd as it gets. Did you really try to use MIDLetPascal? Do you know what is supposed to do? Writting such a complex tool only to put a childish virus inside is as absurd as if Linus Torvalds had just written his kernel to put a virus inside. --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You are free to nominate MIDletPascal for deletion. See WP:AFD for the process for doing so.
2. I didn't remove anyone's comments from any talk pages. Another person might have done so. If they were libelous it would be justified.
3. If MIDletPascal is basically just a device for generating dangerous code, do you not think that this would have been noticed by someone other than yourself? You are free to make statements to this effect in the article providing that you can cite respectable, verifiable, and neutral third party sources. See WP:V for more information. Herostratus 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I currently have a support case open with Symantec. Yes, it is possible that they are producing a false positive - Until I have a definitive answer from them, I consider that the safest option is to not use the product.

I have to assume that Felipe is in some way connected to MidletPascal as he seems to be taking this discussion very personally.

I have been a professional software developer for 18 years. I was pleased to find a Pascal-based tool for developing midlets, but disappointed when every time I tried to compile anything it was immediately quarantined by my anti-virus.

Suggesting that I would go to all this trouble without even attempting to use the product is absurd. I merely was attempting to warn people about a potentially costly virus. A virus that dials premium rate SMS is not some "childish" thing - It is malicious software that could cost users a lot of money.

Comparing this product to Linux is also absurd. Whilst writing a compiler has it's challenges it is certainly not beyond the reach of most competent developers. Writing an operating system is an incredibly complex and difficult task. I can think of few development tasks that would be more difficult.

Whilst I am new to the Wikipedia community I am a longstanding member of many developer communities on the web, and I saw it as my duty to inform of a potential risk. Doing so was not vandalism. Whoever blanked the discussion page to remove my comments did commit vandalism. (See official policy WP:VAND).

I also sought to challenge the notability of this information (see WP:NOTE). "The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works". I have seen no evidence of this.

Xtempore 02:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong. I am in no way connected to the authors of this tool. I took it personally because I took the time to create the page, and you took the time to attack it (by publishing unfunded information, by seeking reasons to delete it, etc, etc).

The correct way to proceed about this would be waiting until Symantec gave their answer to you. Until then, this is only wild speculation. What would happen if I go around wikipedia putting huge notices on all software my anti-virus gives false alarms about??? At least irresponsible I would say.

I recently saw someone saying on a forum that a software created by GCC was pointed as virus, while it was only a hello world. Should I vandalize GCC article? --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 11:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again I will draw your attention to what the official policy on vandalism is... WP:VAND.

Having the predominant ant-virus solution in the world indicate that something is a virus is hardly unfounded, and is certainly not wild speculation. I am sorry that you feel that I somehow violated you by amending your precious article by adding what I thought was pertinent information. Viruses are a very serious issue, and in the event that a virus MAY be present it is best that people know - caveat emptor! Xtempore 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Xtempore, you are correct. I erred in accusing you of vandalism. I hope you will accept my apology. Your edit was made in good faith and I acknowledge that. (Even good faith edits can be reverted, so reverting your edit was not wrong, but accusing you of vandalism was,) Herostratus 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Was there any answer from Symantec? thanks --Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I found Symantec difficult to get an answer from. They wanted me to send logs, and examples and all sorts of stuff. In the meanwhile I was able to find other references to this issue on the web that lead me to believe this is as you guessed a false positive. It seems the Redbrowser trojan was written in MidletPascal and as a result anything written with it will now trigger a response from Norton and Macafee (among others). I don't have the time nor inclination to follow up with Symantec, and think that the page as it stands is probably okay. It now indicates that some anti-virus software may show a false positive.

So whilst I agree that you were correct in saying this was likely a false positive, I stand by my "better safe than sorry" stance. I will however be much more careful in the future in jumping to conclusions based on what my antivirus says! Xtempore 06:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)