Talk:Roger Needham

message: User:67.159.26.65 is in danger of violating 3R rule with the following edits:  
Please do not continue to vandalize this entry, as you run the risk of having your IP blocked for edits, and your Usage History indicates that perhaps you are not the only Wikipedia user that has this IP. --Rosicrucian 03:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's three reverts... --Rosicrucian 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: If the anon who keeps vandalizing this article is hopping IPs now, perhaps the best thing to do is to semiprotect the article.  If any of the regular editors of this page would like me to do that, just drop me a note on my talk page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a regular editor on this page (largely because other than vandalism it stays pretty stable) but I'd agree with what you've proposed.--Rosicrucian 23:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be protected, for at least a few months. Markus Kuhn 17:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few months sounds too long, but a few weeks at least. — TheKMantalk 17:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Two days. That's all it took after it getting unprotected before he vandalized it again in the exact same manner. Guy's persistent, I'll give him that.--Rosicrucian 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say give it at least a month of semiprotection, then perhaps a week of close watching to see if this guy returns. The original semiprotect was only for around ten days, which is perhaps why it was so ineffective.--Rosicrucian 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if we could get the semiprotection back up as soon as possible? We got his vandalism account banned, but he's just back to using anonymous IPS.--Rosicrucian 14:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semiprotection? 

message: OK. Dear IP-hopping vandalizer, it seems, sadly, that keeping semi-protection in place for only a few weeks did not discourage you from coming back quickly to add your incivility to the article. I would welcome if, instead, you elaborated here on the talk page in more detail (and perhaps even with a more civilized use of words) on the reasons for your anger about this article or person, rather than wasting our time with adding rather inappropriate remarks again and again, only to have us remove it soon afterwards. Having known Prof. Needham personally since 1996, I find the words you used so far most inaccurate, and would be curious to hear what drives you to add them. Markus Kuhn 12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears now he's created a user account expressly for the purpose of vandalizing this article. He just did it under User:TsingTao, though I've already reverted it.--Rosicrucian 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent vandalism

message: For convenience, I figured we might as well keep this updated here as a means of documenting it. Add to this as needed--Rosicrucian 14:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He sure is perisistent.  D'you suppose he'll stop when every item on the Chinese restaurant's menu has a blocked account? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the template to the latest sock. I'm surprised he's keeping it up this much. His vandal pattern has gotten so recognizable that we barely need to actively patrol this article, as he's reverted by bots.--Rosicrucian 23:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated TsingTao with the puppeteer template, and put sock templates on all the known socks. All known socks are now part of :Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TsingTao.--Rosicrucian 00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet list 

message: please change the link Needham-Schroeder -> Needham-Schroeder protocol.
Velle 13:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made it a piped link to Needham-Schroeder security protocol, because I'm not sure that Needham-Schroeder protocol provides enough context.  I do think the former wording was awkward. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needham-Schroeder -> Needham-Schroeder protocol 

message: Since the full protect's off, I'll be back on edit patrol.--Rosicrucian 15:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And he's back, but so obvious that the bots are spotting him immediately. Oh well, it was such a nice two months.--Rosicrucian 14:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An enterprising admin managed to purge every last vandal edit, retroactively. Rather clever.--Rosicrucian 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Four days.  Let's see if semiprotection works this time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's using a aged sock. Can someone clean the history again? Kavadi carrier 14:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping that we might be able to get an IP block, but apparently he's on a shared IP.  The process of selective deletion is very complex, a bit too much so for a Bear of Very Little Brain like me; I think VoA did it last time, possibly with the aid of a bot.  I'll ask if he can do it again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to semiprotection, apparently 

message: This article needs an infobox. When I add one to this section I will make an  request. Kavadi carrier 04:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied to article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the different image size the infobox uses, I've resampled a fresh copy of the image from the original photo, and it looks quite a bit better now.--Rosicrucian 07:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I note that the external link to the San Francisco Chronicle obituary is broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.26.20 (talk • contribs) 23:01, December 12, 2006  (UTC)
:Well spotted.  I couldn't find the obit in their archives, so I've removed the link; we've already got other obituaries linked in that section, so it's no great loss. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Could some kind administrator please add the category Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery? Perhaps also note in the article text that he was a fellow of the ACM from 1994.
Janm67 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Centrx→talk • 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery 

message: Please add the following Persondata just before the categories:


Also fix the infobox's birth_date from September 2 to February 9. Thanks! Resurgent insurgent 06:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persondata and infobox DOB 

message: Can an admin add Category:Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering and Category:Commanders of the Order of the British Empire to this page? Thanks Tassedethe (talk) 11:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  add new categories