Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 6 July 2010

Dude, are you really using and ordering ATMELs or are you here just for propaganda ?

Your question is irrelevant to the fact that the observations in the article about supply and willingness to sell small quantities badly violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR; that is why they were removed.

Still, I will respond to your question: yes, I have been using and ordering AVR's for about 10 years now. I used to have an STK200 and STK300, way back when you you needed a different kit for the Mega103 and Mega603, which were the only mega's at the time. I also remember when you could sell AT90S2313's for $20 on ebay because they were in very short supply and someone had designed it into a satellite card hacking device circa 2000/2001.

More recently, I just finished designing a Mega324P into a piece of automated test equipment for a customer. Pfagerburg (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Af89003a —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.253.113.194 (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Still here

Feel free to leave a comment on my talk page, but it's better to use e-mail to contact me, or to alert me to something that must be discussed here or other places on-wiki. The e-mail address in my account is active; the "Email this user" link will work. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

rm edits of banned user

After doing two reverts, it dawned on me that maybe I should put the explanation here, instead of duplicating it all over the place. Official WP policy is that "anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." (, emphasis mine)

I am slowly removing the edits of various sockpuppets of a banned user. In some edit summaries, I refer to "old edits," which might lead some editors to think that I am reverting everything this user every edited. These "old edits" were still made when the user was blocked (since Aug 2007) or banned (since Sept 2008). I am not reverting any edits made while this user was not under a block or ban. The latest sockpuppet investigation can be found here.

• Linuxmdb (talk · contribs) already done before I got to it
• AmaTsisqa (talk · contribs) already done before I got to it
• 71.219.59.226 (talk · contribs) done (just one article that hadn't been cleaned up yet by another editor)

This one was not part of the SPI, but it is obvious from the articles edited and the content inserted that it is the same sockmaster.

• 71.219.51.124 (talk · contribs) done

Other sockpuppets are listed in an earlier archived sockpuppet and checkuser requests, and will be dealt with eventually, including

• Jvmphoto (talk · contribs) only edits were to talk pages, responses to WP policy actions, and many edits to a now-deleted page. Nothing to do for this sockpuppet.
• 166.70.238.43 (talk · contribs) done, some were already edited out since the original edit in defiance of the ban
• 166.70.238.44 (talk · contribs), holy crap that was one profilic sock

• Actaea done
• Actaea pachypoda done
• Actaea spicata done
• Alder done
• Alnus rubra done
• Apocynum done
• Aquilegia done
• Arnica done
• Arnica montana done
• Artemisia tridentata done
• Balsamorhiza done
• Betulin done
• Castilleja done
• Ceanothus done
• Chicory done
• Cicuta done
• Cicutoxin done
• Claytonia done
• Clematis done
• Clematis ligusticifolia edited out in the intervening time
• Conium done
• Coumarin done
• Cymarin done
• Cystolith already got it earlier while cleaning up another IP sock
• Darl McBride edits are too tangled to cleanly revert, and piecemeal reversion opens me to WP:COI claims. Have to leave this one alone
• Devil's Club done
• Epilobium angustifolium done
• Eric E. Schmidt oh yeah, I took care of that one right after it happened.
• Erodium cicutarium done
• Galium aparine has been substantially re-edited since then
• Galium boreale done
• Geranium viscosissimum done
• Hydrophyllum done
• Juniper done
• Juniperus communis done
• Larrea tridentata has been substantially re-edited since then
• Lithospermum done
• Maianthemum racemosum
• Methyl salicylate
• Mimulus
• Monarda
• Monarda didyma
• Monarda fistulosa
• Montia
• Mullein already has been edited out
• Oplopanax
• Osha
• Osmorhiza only the ref to Mountain Sweetroot remains
• Packet capture someone else took care of it around the time it happened.
• Pasque flower
• Perideridia
• Polygonum already edited out
• Polygonum bistortoides already edited out
• Radicchio
• Red baneberry already edited out
• Reiki other editors took care of it at the time
• Ribes
• Rotenone already edited out
• Rumex crispus
• SCO-Linux controversies another editor took care of it at the time
• Salvia dorrii
• Solera networks he self-reverted 7 minutes later. Odd.
• Spiraea
• Stellaria
• Stellaria media
• Stinging nettle
• Streptopus amplexifolius
• Talk:Network monitoring leave alone, part of a larger dialogue, correct conclusion was reached
• Talk:Packet capture leave alone, part of a larger dialogue, correct conclusion was reached
• Talk:Reiki section started by the sockpuppet has been moved into archives, notice at the top of archive pages says not to edit.
• Tansy
• Thymol
• Usnea
• Veratrum
• Veronica americana

• 166.70.238.45 (talk · contribs) done, not many edits from this IP, and some were already reverted
• 166.70.238.46 (talk · contribs) done, some were already reverted or had been edited out
• 69.2.248.210 (talk · contribs) only edits were to talk pages, responses to WP policy actions, and many edits to a now-deleted page. Nothing to do for this sockpuppet.

I've noticed that a few other editors have already taken care of some of the articles. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at user Gbelknap while you're at it. Hasn't edited since 2008, but a fairly obvious sock when you dig into the contribs. 64.139.4.129 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that account is a sockpuppet.

• Searching for the account name and the name of the company in the account's edit history yields a real-world identity which makes perfect sense given the editing pattern - two articles about a technology marketed by his employer, and one article created about said employer.

• Checkuser would be worthless, because the edits are too old for WP to still have the IP addresses. Though I would bet dollars to donuts the edits came from that company's IP address(es).

• The account has behaved itself remarkably well. After creating a page for his employer, he responded properly to the AfD, and has not edited on any other subjects since then. His mission accomplished, he retired from editing.

• Approximately one month after Gbelknap's edits, a certain well-known IP address was all over the company's article, posting claims about litigation in a series of edits. Gbelknap didn't even go back to edit out these claims (i.e. he avoided edit-warring).

I'm going to pass on Gbelknap; I believe that the account was not controlled by the sockmaster who is at issue here. I'm quite willing to be proven wrong, if someone believes otherwise and can support their argument. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Query

I have undone a few of your reverts on pages that I have on my watchlist. From what I've seen, for the most part, these old edits were cited to reliable sources, concise, with proper grammar and spelling. I don't see any reason to revert these old edits unless there's something I'm missing. Why not just pick out the bad faith edits and revert those without touching the decent ones? Just because Misplaced Pages policy says we can revert edits of banned users subverting that ban doesn't mean it's the best thing for the encyclopedia to do so. Can you help me understand why you feel you must revert these edits? Rkitko 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. And in this particular case, the part of that policy that says "The measure of a site ban is that even if the user were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good." (emphasis in original)

The user in question has been permanently blocked many times, and brings nothing but grief to the project every time he is able to get himself unblocked. The site ban came only after verified evidence of off-wiki harassment of at least one other editor.

Other issues (real life tends to get in the way) have prevented me from cleaning up this sockpuppet's violations of a block (and then a ban) until now. I apologize for the delay, and preemptively agree with anyone who wants to state that it would have been better to clean it up when it happened. Pfagerburg (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that banned users have been banned for a reason and their editing is not to be allowed. But what, now, is the purpose of reverting two-year-old edits that are decently done? Banning and blocking is not meant to be punitive but is instituted to protect the encyclopedia. How is it helping to revert these edits from two years ago? In fact, it might even be perceived that removing these cited paragraphs (mostly cited to a single source, I see) is doing more harm than good. It specifically impacts WP:PLANTS as many of the articles are within the scope of that project. If we want that info back on those articles, we'll now have to do a great deal of legwork to accomplish that. What protective purpose does it serve to undo these edits now? Rkitko 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

After careful consideration, it is my judgment that those edits were an attempt to game the system - either let him flout the rules by leaving the good edits intact, or revert a good edit. The policy spells this out pretty clearly, and says that even "good" edits can be reverted.

So, the "protective purpose" from my point of view is to show that WP policy applies to all editors, and that no editor has an "agreement" with WP that allows them to ignore policies, or avoid a justly-deserved block or ban.

I dispute your assertion that there is "a great deal of legwork" to return information to the articles. You're returning all of the information to each article with a single revert, but even if you didn't, the refs are still present in the article history, and it shouldn't be a problem for someone to grab a copy of Tilford and add new content.

As a show of good faith, I will temporarily refrain from reverting as we continue this discussion.

N.B. I am talking only about the Mar/Apr 2008 edits to the WP:PLANTS articles. There are a few active socks right now, and I am reverting these as soon as I notice them. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

However, I stand behind the explicit text of the WP policy: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." I don't see any references there to a time frame, or (to raise the issue pre-emptively) a COI on the part of the reverting editor. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal Vendetta

This user Paul Fagerburg is on a personal vendetta and should be banned. he filed legal action against Jeff Merkey and is simply on a personal vendetta because the judge dismissed his suit, fined him, and told him to avoid Jeff. As is evident, he is destroying content in Misplaced Pages for no reason other than personal revenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.116.225 (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I called Provo and checked at the Courthouse -- PFagerburg filed a lawsuit against merkey. He should not be here.