text:
Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation

Congrats
IMO this article is a fine and intriguing piece of work. I've not encountered the topic in decades of science reading, and this account linking numerous historical efforts to resolve the (still-unresolved!) question is a remarkable overview. Twang (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Le Sage's theory of gravitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=bn57l77831121738
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060305222112/http://mgi.my100megs.com/LeSage.html to http://mgi.my100megs.com/LeSage.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040725054729/http://ghtc.ifi.unicamp.br/pdf/ram-89.pdf to http://ghtc.ifi.unicamp.br/pdf/ram-89.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=9h5n3qlfl93q3uk6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

POV, unreliable sources and direct nexus content
An attempt to include a latest activity on push-gravity theory was reverted. This seems justified on account of an unsourced opinion. It is now proposed to consider a more appropriate inclusion under “recent activity” as follows:

“A recent working paper on a | novel quantitative push gravity theory poised for verification has appeared on CERN’s unrefereed Zenodo platform.”

WP rules and policies are there to protect the reliability and veracity of its content as much as possible. However, the same policies misapplied can be also detrimental to an article. Some noteworthy points about the proposed inclusion are (a) it is hosted by CERN's website with DOI allocation, (b) has a significant number of downloads, (c) addresses many critical issues of the current article as readers/editors in the field can ascertain, (d) being a multifaceted work, it is evolving as a book rather than an article suitable for review by a specialized journal and (e) is written by an established author. These and other reasons constitute a prima-face nexus with the present article. The above points may suffice for some exceptions foreseeable by rules to apply. Sure, who is to decide when exceptions exist other than apply common sense? It is at the discretion of editors to see through the "grey" cases and allow, at least with appropriate caution, what can be important or critical information for a given WP article. This is a frequent occurrence in WP, if to avoid a rigid application of rules without consideration of the merits in specific cases.

Notwithstanding all the above, the issue is not only about exempting an unreliable source, but also whether any mention whatsoever about it can be made. The new inclusion makes no assertion or POV about the source and does not compromise the veracity of the WP article, whilst it enriches it by the mere fact of leading to information with direct nexus to the article. A complete blackout of this latest activity regardless of it being a refereed paper or not, a book or any other type is tantamount to censorship. It would be a misapplication of the policies and rules. Readers are by no means misled by the new proposal, whilst they can always make their own judgement about the “unreliable” medium (Zenodo) vis-à-vis the source (paper) per se.

It is proposed that editors may like to consider the inclusion of at least a minimum appropriate mention of the latest activity. This can be done in the main body, in the secondary sources, external links, or elsewhere following discussion in good faith herewith. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think you should write the section, well source it, and post it. It will never get debated or changed if you just talk about it here. StarHOG (Talk) 21:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

- @-ALL-READERS-EDITORS: Please note the time stamps immediately above and below this comment here. During the time span of about five months, the above entry and source was allowed totally undisturbed. Esem0 (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And outright hoaxes have survived more than ten years because nobody noticed them. So what? XOR'easter (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Patently untrue that nobody noticed when DVdm reverted in minutes, also considering this and this and this and more. DVdm does not give up easily but at least applies common sense when due. You do not appear to be a better guardian of WP policy. Esem0 (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is edging into the realm of personal attacks. I was simply making the point that text can hang around Wikipedia for a long, long time without actually being good text. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It states clearly that you do not appear to have better WP reasons that the previous editor does not have. Hence, the stability for five months here, in the current context, is significant and nothing to do with hoaxes lasting for a long time elsewhere. Please be cooperative without diverting from the local note above. Need to continue at the end of the Section. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the "stability for five months" is not significant. A problem is a problem; enduring for a while doesn't make it respectable. Additions of bad text can be overlooked, if the people who previously cleaned up a page did not watchlist it, or removed it from their watchlist, or failed to scroll their watchlist all the way to the end, or figured they'd get back to it after a coffee break and then got distracted.... "Stability" without discussion to back it up means nothing once the text is, in fact, disputed. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All your hypotheses show how you model reality to suit your purposes, because DVdm is actually reading (call it watching). Your assumptions are dubious. The stability of the article in this case is indeed significant. I started this discussion Section myself in the first place and Tercer said ″discussion is not necessary″. Mistaken again on all counts. Please be cooperative with logic :) Esem0 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I gave a whole list of reasons why bad content can and does persist on watched pages. You are resorting to insults dressed up with a smiley face (which does not actually make an insult polite). XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You gave a whole list of reasons why the source in question ″can be overlooked″. I just revealed the reality, which is never an insult (″yawn″ could be one). Truth is not always likable, while my :) is a sign of good will for cooperation on the evidence. Esem0 (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

- @Tercer is kindly requested to undo this reversion and avoid an edit war; should have come to this discussion first. An initial reversion for the same reason was rectified after discussion and the article has been stable for about five months. Thank you very much. Esem0 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done the above myself and hope, in good faith, it should be OK. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not OK. Wikipedia should mention reliable sources. Unreliable sources shouldn't even be mentioned. Call it censorship if you want, but that's explicitly how Wikipedia is designed to work. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your own research; you need first to get it accepted by the scientific community. Tercer (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nice to be able to discuss these issues with you, of which there are several. My main concern first is, if you have a legitimate knowledge that I am the author of the reference you deleted. If you do, are you allowed by Wiki rules, or have you violated my Wiki privacy? I hope you can appreciate my concern and that we can come to a speedy and amicable resolution. Esem0 (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I know is that you're insisting on mentioning this obscure manuscript, and from that I decided it was worth warning you about Wikipedia policy on WP:COI. If you're not the author you can just ignore that. Tercer (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to WP:COI, where is says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Well, I am doing none of these. Then, let us talk about the reference itself and its contribution to the Wiki article on gravity:

Allowing me to "call it censorship" does not mean you can practice it. It would be nice if you could address point-by-point all the reasons that have been presented in three paragraphs above. Based on them, my edit was allowed in the article for five months. You have reverted it (out of the blue) twice without prior discussion. May be the first time was done inadvertently (as I thought), but we should have first exhausted our discussion here, before you reverted again. To spare me from having to repeat all my arguments in bullet form, please take the effort to respond to each one of them. One pass should be sufficient to allow the reference. Esem0 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion is not necessary, because inclusion of this source is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. As for your bullet points, (a) is not relevant, (b) is not relevant, (c) is beside the point because the source is not reliable, (d) is not a problem, books can and are often cited in Wikipedia, but of course not self-published books, and (e) would be very relevant, but the author Gerasimos Danilatos worked on microscopy, not gravity, so he is not an expert on the field. That is the only exception Wikipedia has for self-published sources. Since it doesn't apply, this source doesn't count as a reliable source and cannot be included. Tercer (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussion is necessary because inclusion of this particular source is not a clear violation of Wiki policy at all. A reliable source is not only refereed journals. Reliable means reliable. The author is reliable because of this. Wiki editors can write about anything, not necessarily having their own publications on the same subject (which you do not want to allow anyway!). Wiki editors must write reliable articles, that is the requirement. The author has stated at the end of the proposed inclusion valid reasons why it is not submitted to a journal. ZENODO is a CERN repository like arXiv (also not refereed). Does Wikipedia exclude arXiv repository as a reliable source too? The allocation of a durable DOI by ZENODO (like arXiv), make the source durable, referable and reliable, not like a personal website that may evaporate any time (hence unreliable). Many serious works are found on ZENODO, which you called “obscure”. The proposed inclusion has a few thousands of views and downloads, which points to strong public interest; this is relevant. Not many refereed papers get that many downloads. Therefore, all my points are very relevant. They are about reliability and they are all consistent with Wiki policy. You skipped my other point whereby Wiki policy is flexible about the interpretation of its rules. Common sense is the main one. This inclusion addresses almost all the issues of the Wiki article and it is highly relevant. If you are so keen to safeguard and improve the quality of Wiki, then I hope you are now persuaded to agree for the inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esem0 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * arXiv has exactly the same problem as ZENODO: it's self-published, and therefore only allowed when the author is an expert on the field. Let me quote from WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. (emphasis in the original). Gerasimos Danilatos doesn't seem to have any peer-reviewed publication on gravity, and therefore does not qualify. Tercer (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to the question, Does Wikipedia exclude arXiv repository as a reliable source too? Yes. Wikipedia excludes the arXiv repository from being a reliable source. See its entry at WP:RSP: There is consensus that arXiv is a self-published source, and is generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts. As noted above, there is no indication that Danilatos is a subject-matter expert for this topic. Reliability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is not a matter of having a DOI or any other persistent identifier. The inclusion of the suggested text (A recent working paper...) would absolutely be against Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I would readily agree with above objections if ″the author worked on microscopy, not gravity, so he is not an expert on the field″. However, that author worked on the Environmental scanning electron microscope which heavily relies on gas dynamics expertise. This can be ascertained by most of his publications. He has not simply done microscopy, or just electron microscopy imaging of specimens. He worked on developing the machine itself that requires multidisciplinary expertise with a heavy emphasis on gas dynamics, where he has also published. If you wonder what connection there is with gravity, please see the discussion in his paper (p. 115, version-10) where he states ″The idea of push gravity occurred to this author during work on gas flows in an environmental scanning electron microscope″ and much more. Gas may appear to have no connection with gravity, where (article) there is at least one meagre mention to it in Alternative theories, namely, gravity ″based on a fluid-based explanation where a light gas fills the entire Universe″. There are many parameters that the author has used from his gas dynamics expertise to Fatio's gravity. I can go on to write an essay in this connection, but there is now sufficient evidence on the background Wikipedia requirements as you have exactly explained. These requirements are now met. I appreciate that this background may not have been obvious, and I am glad that I was given the opportunity to present it. I hope this works now and thanks. BTW, over and above the above clarification (not an argument for/against reverting), please let me say that the current article is grossly imbalanced with an emphasis on criticisms of Fatio's proposal and only a trivial last paragraph on ″recent activity″. This is a stunning example of POV violations through and through, but it is understandable. The paper has addressed most of the issues and criticisms filling this article, but admittedly this is an opinion to which I may not rely. At least, we could allow a neutral entry and let readers find out and decide. This is common sense for this particular discussion. Esem0 (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Having worked with gases mostly definitely do not make him an expert in gravity. Tercer (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are referring to this gravity. I am referring to Fatio's gravity, which is based on the physics of gases. It is a totally different concept. It is not your gravity. Did you read the relevant excerpt in full? When you do, then the connection is clear. Please do not interpret and apply the Wikipedia rules as you see fit. I avoid expanding what is adamantly clear. Please try to understand. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly aware that Fatio's gravity is based on gases. Nevertheless, one needs to be an expert in gravity in order to claim that this gas-based theory does reproduce the effects of gravity as we understand it. Tercer (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The ″as we understand it″ applies well in the gravity article, not here. Thank goodness and we have Fatio's (theory) article outside your gravity understanding. You should not impose your understanding here, this is POV violation. Please let this article be itself. I am only supplying a reference in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion. Clearly you are never going to agree that including your work here is not allowed. You don't need to agree, though, I was just talking to you out of politeness. Tercer (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One must be an expert on gravity in order for one's writing to be even potentially acceptable as a self-published source in an article about gravity. Danilatos does not qualify. For an analogy: a microbiologist could declare that gravity is caused by space bacteria, but that declaration does not make them an actual expert on gravity. In science, for a new theory to succeed it must explain at least as much as the old one did; knowing how the old theory works is a necessary step one must take before trying to invent a better one. Including the proposed text would violate WP:NPOV, because NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Danilatos' notions have not been published by reliable sources, and they are not significant views. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter. I agree that the microbiologist analogy would not qualify under Fatio's gravity. However, this is a failed analogy, because only the paper in question is exactly what Fatio proposes with further development. If Fatio had claimed microbes to cause gravity, and if there was an article on it, then the microbiologist should be allowed to be included in such an article. Thus, microbiology is not an analogy here. Both Fatio and the paper in question may be wrong or maybe not, which is another matter. We are not supposed to make a judgement about it here. However, this is what you are doing, hence you violate the NPOV policy. Fatio says that gravity is caused by a light gas (not microbes). The paper says the same and develops it further. You may not agree with the idea, but you must agree that Fatio's expertise and Danilatos expertise are common. The article is a self-contained theory on gravity and is NOT relying on other theories of gravity or your point of view. You apply the ″gravity″ requirement as you perceive gravity, which is your opinion. You should let information directly related to this special article on gravity in. The information is provided by an expert in the field of Fatio's gravity, which you appear not to want to see yet. Fatio’s gravity does not require the tools, principles, and ideas of other theories, hence it does not need approval by the advocates of those other theories and other sources. Fatio may not be subjected to the criteria of those other theories, or your opinion on how science should be. The Danilatos paper does not require a baptism certificate from said outsiders. You may not like this, but this is Wikipedia here. This is a key point for the Wikipedia article on Fatio’s gravity, which must only meet the Wikipedia rules, not your understanding of anything different. I totally agree with the policy on arXiv (hence zenodo), which I learned thanks to you. I was guided by having seen numerous citations on arXiv before, but you highlighted the specific conditions on that. Thank you. We only differ now on whether Danilatos qualifies to be cited here or not. So, this remains open if you refuse to apply Aristotelian logic and Wikipedia common sense. Please note how readily I agree with your points except some, and how readily I am prepared to yield to logic and common sense. I expect a reciprocal approach. @Tercer should desist from repeating his original mistake. I am not going to be interrogated by him, who is bluntly violating the Wikipedia privacy policy. I thought he had apologized in an indirect way, which I let go per his suggestion; but he must now provide a full and satisfactory answer on my original query. This was a serious concern, but more so now. I would have taken a different route if I did not accept his good faith. This makes it clearer that this maybe the real reason, for which he censored the reference, all the rest is make believe. He may not like that author’s theory, which may conflict with his own theoretical perceptions. He states I'm a theoretical physicist. I am afraid he is in conflict of interest with the theory of that paper and with the Wikipedia article, which he attempts to cull down. He attempts to put this article in a straitjacket from which improvement is impossible, or only to his liking. That is a conflict of interest. I noted the praise Tercer received for his contributions on quantum mechanics. The same applies for XOR'easter. I have not spent my time to investigate their activities and how they both converged here. Tercer has now stated his unwillingness to continue or relent no matter what new material is presented. I hope common sense prevails on all issues to avoid escalating further. I am prepared to relent only by logical discussion, not by inference and intimidation. Esem0 (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to The Danilatos paper does not require a baptism certificate from said outsiders. Actually, it does. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

XOR’easter has summarized succinctly all the preceding discussion, i.e., excluding his ″nope″ that remains to be decided. This is very helpful towards a final resolution. I hope others will not recycle and rehash what is already said. He has also presented the microbiology analogy that can be used by new editors even if they are not experts in the relevant fields having no bias for or against the theory in the paper. For practical purposes, I may also summarize what this discussion is about: It would be appreciated if new replies contain a reasoned statement addressing the remaining issues. Esem0 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Should the deleted entry ″A recent working paper on a novel quantitative push gravity theory poised for verification has appeared on CERN’s unrefereed Zenodo platform″ under this article's section on recent activity be restored? The same applies under the deleted entry in the Mechanical explanations of gravitation article.
 * 2) Should the entry 'novel quantitative push gravity theory poised for verification' under external links be restored?
 * 3) Does Wikipedia policy agree that “The Danilatos paper does not require a baptism certificate from said outsiders.”? If it does require one, does it do equally for both the main body and the external link for this particular paper in this particular Wikipedia article?
 * 4) How does Common sense apply here?
 * 1. No, because it violates WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE to say the least. 2. No, for the same reasons, along with WP:ELNO. 3. Yes, for the reasons already articulated. 4. "Common sense" says that an encyclopedia should have standards for what it includes. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer questions #1 and #2 correctly, we need to go through questions #3 and #4 first. Yes, an encyclopedia should have standards for what it includes, but standards to be applied with common sense, not mechanically and not simply as one sees fit. Question #3 has also other articulations. The said paper states clearly why it remains a self-published work. I am forced to rehash by paraphrasing as follows: It encompasses many different disciplines in physics, i.e., for its most part it is outside the scope of any particular journal and thus it is not suitable for submission to them. It has grown into the areas of astrophysics, particle physics, quantum field theory, etc. in addition to gravity, to mention only some. Furthermore, it is a working paper in progress. The author further agrees with the refereeing process of journals as evidenced by the fact that he himself has acted as referee on numerous occasions. At least, this evidence clears the author from being a “fringe” author, or lacking reputation, or being unreliable. That is why it was articulated that this is an exceptional (particular) case for an exceptional (particular) WP article. So the question/problem here reduces to how applies the WP policy stating ″Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications″ (reliable sources). Unfortunately, there is no single relevant field outside Fatio's that could issue the said baptism certificate. The only relevant field here is gas dynamics, which is inherent in the Fatio theory. Unfortunately, you do not want to accept this, because you cannot see that your microbiology analogy is flawed. This is where we need to apply common sense. Bottom line: What are we going to do in this particular case? Is it harmful to leave this simple reference (without POV) in the article? Let us not degenerate or denigrate this talk to a debating society whereby both parties will never agree on a question until a vote is taken. I have agreed with much of your input, but you insist on being 100% disagreeable and inflexible. You allow no room for improvement of this article; there is a lot more to be said in this respect, but I would rather proceed as needed. Esem0 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)Esem0 (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In response to The only relevant field here is gas dynamics, which is inherent in the Fatio theory. This is patently untrue. I am only being inflexible because policy is incredibly clear. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It becomes now clear that we are talking cross-purposes, because the key points have been spread around in different phrases and the essence sidelined. Please let me put them together and explain: ″baptism certificate from said outsiders″ has been rephrased also as ″it does not need approval by the advocates of those other theories and other sources″. You say it does, while I say it does not. This is the crux of our disagreement. We are dealing here with the field of physics where Fatio’s theory and ″said outsiders″ belong. They are all fields of physics. I thought that ″gas dynamics″ would be sufficient for the argument’s sake. If not, then Fatio’s theory also contains radiation absorption physics and particle physics. The Danilatos paper contains these, like electron beam absorption and much more.  ESEM, where Danilatos has published extensively is a multidisciplinary area in physics in all the above subfields of physics and more. It contains electron optics, electrical fields, particle detectors and so on and so forth, all subfields in physics with corresponding journals. Fatio’s theory to expand needs the above expertise. The paper says that it is also a mathematical treatise on the Fatio principle poised for verification in physics. Hence, I retract the word ″only″ gas dynamics, and please do not isolate a single word or sentence while sidelining the rest. Also, the paper is not confined to its title only. Generally, the title of something is not binding on the content. The title could be different, which incidentally also contains the words “push electricity’. Finally, the author deems that it is not suitable for submission to those other subfields. We must respect whatever his reasons, like it may be only the size that makes it unsuitable for specialized journals. The fact that he himself has acted as referee and respects the refereeing procedure indicates that we should accept this position. After all, we are not supposed to judge what the author claims. We (WP editors) should not act as referee ourselves for the content of that work. If we do, then we violate WP policy. You misinterpret what the ″relevant field″ in WP policy is. The relevant subfields in the Fatio’s theory are already possessed by Danilatos. They are all in physics. His work in this article is under coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. Therefore, it is patently clear that he is an expert in the relevant field of physics, not in microbiology or theology. There are competing subfields, not one of them to be forced, for all the above reasons. We should not allow that competition to creep in WP that should stay neutral. With your interpretation of WP rules, you effectively try to steer the paper to the sub-source of your liking and force a certificate from one of them. However, the paper in question lies outside and is not the subject matter of any one of them separately but is the subject of multidisciplinary physics field. It is patently clear that you are acting like a referee on the content of the paper. This violates WP policy. You deviate from the correct interpretation of WP policy under common sense for whatever reasons. In conclusion, it is patently clear that the paper in question is a self-published expert source considered reliable as being produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field (physics) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Cleared. Esem0 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , this discussion is going in circles. I think it should be clear by now that you're never going to convince me or that this reference should be included. Your only hope is to ask the wider Wikipedia community for help with dispute resolution, specifically through a WP:DRN or a WP:RFC. I don't think it is going to work either, because what you want to do is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Instead my advice is to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I don't think you're going to accept this advice, though. Tercer (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Walls of text and special pleading do not change the fact that this is a textbook example of the kind of content that we don't include. Even if Danilatos' subject-matter expertise were in the correct area (it's not), asserting that one has a revolutionary theory of physics is a self-serving claim, which WP:SPS would still not allow. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not know if it is ″a revolutionary theory″, etc. or not. However, you claim to know. That is only your opinion falling outside the brief of WP Editors. I am not a scholar on WP policy, which I learn as needed. I understand that NPOV means that we go only by reliable sources without imposing our own knowledge (opinion) on an article. This applies a lot in politics but also in science and physics too. As I said, there are competing theories within physics and WP editors should not impose their own theories under various pretexts. We are not acting as would-be referees by a journal here. For the issue at hand, we are not talking about an off-the-street pamphlet from an obscure author on a personal website, either. Furthermore, arbitrary interpretation of WP policy with non-applicable arguments pointing to a litany of WP policy links can be quite misleading. Piling up links like ″WP:COI, horse-carcass, pleading, walls-of-text, hoaxes-survival″ and much more are ludicrous lawyering that truly adds a huge amount of text through the back door while diverting, augmenting, and forcing this discussion to go in circles and confusion. It has taken me ages to go through all quoted links, none of which applies here. They look like a salvo of empty bombshells, while this is not a debating society. You make a strenuous attempt to wipe out one neutral source from a 100% relevant WP article. I cannot understand all this, unless either or both of the following happens: (a) you like to ″clean up″ WP articles and (b) you like to eliminate sources that conflict with your opinion on unsolved problems in physics. Based on this talk Section, you appear to aim for (b) using (a). I have not investigated if you have done the same before and I prefer us coming to a rational outcome here. Extra caution is required to avoid further harm to this particular article. Esem0 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC about POV, unreliable sources and direct nexus content
To restore a deleted self-published source from the ″Recent activity″ Section and/or External links. Esem0 (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC) ATTENTION: This RfC is in continuation to the preceding discussion under the same title. Esem0 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC). The long version of the ″neutral statement″ is if the following policy is satisfied: ″Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications″. Esem0 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (reliable sources)

(I moved the new title of this section to where it chronologically belongs. See wp:Talk page guidelines and WP:TALK.)
 * Comment. No, we don't want content —let alone external links— from obscure self-published sources. Policies and guidelines at wp:COI, wp:ELNO, WP:SELFPUB, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE. The above discussion is a severe waste of time and should have been closed long ago. - DVdm (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggested to start a RfC about this because they refuse to listen what me and  have been telling them all along: including this source is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Maybe with a RfC they will realize that this is not a conspiracy to censor their work, this is just how Wikipedia is supposed to be. Tercer (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The "neutral statement" for this RfC is neither a sentence nor a question, but it has the answer right there in it: we don't use or want a "self-published source" and it has no place either in a ″Recent activity″ section or ELs. DVdm is quite right here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read the discussion you can see that the following policy is satisfied: ″Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications″ (reliable sources). Esem0 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, "may be considered reliable". And the consensus seems to be that it is not considered reliable. You are wasting our and your time here. - DVdm (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please be consistent by not wasting your time here. Let some independent RfC comments be expressed. You appeared to be consistent for 5-6 months, but not anymore. We do not need prompting here. Thank you. Esem0 (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I suppose my position is probably clear enough from the excessively lengthy commentary above, but in short, all the policies and guidelines mentioned by do in fact apply. A self-published source that is not by a subject-matter expert — news flash, science is specialized — that makes an unduly self-serving claim — a revolutionary theory of physics, too special for regular peer review — is a classic example of what the encyclopedia doesn't want. XOR'easter (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should be repeating what is already said in the preceding talk. However, you see fit to repeat the same, to which the reply was: ″In conclusion, it is patently clear that the paper in question is a self-published expert source considered reliable as being produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field (physics) has previously been published by reliable, independent publications″. Esem0 (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The author, Gerasimos Danilatos, seems to be an expert in microscopy. He doesn't have any publication in gravity, which is the relevant field here. It seems to be yet another example of the well-known phenomenon that an old physicist gets bored from doing run-of-the-mill research, hops into a new field that he doesn't understand, and thinks he will solve everything with a great new insight that somehow the experts have missed for decades. Spoiler alert: they didn't, and he won't. Tercer (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted and thank you. However, you repeat what you said in the discussion. I have thoroughly responded to all this with evidence. Please do not complain again that we go around in circles. I will abstain from repeating here, in the hope that genuine RfC responders go through our full discussion above. That is the reason we have come here. Esem0 (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Concur with the above statements. This is exactly what WP:ELNO is there to prevent from being added to Wikipedia as noted above.  Wikipedia is not the place to publish or promote new thoughts/ideas and that's what is being attempted here.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I cannot find where WP:ELNO overrides WP:RS. Esem0 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Esem0 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it overrides, but that is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that wp:CONSENSUS overrides wp:ANYTHING, and that is what is happening here. Look at the other comments. You asked for them and you got them. - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeated inconsistency: Why bother wasting your time and ours, per your opening remark, when you do not even want this discussion open? Please let some independent RfC comments to be expressed without your prompts. We have noted your history. We heard you. Thanks. Esem0 (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This pretty clearly fails WP:RS - it's self-published, not peer reviewed and not from an acknowledged expert. It's a WP:FRINGE view as well.  I acknowledge that you disagree with this view, but from my review of the above sections, your view is mistaken.   Ravensfire  (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Concur with above, especially statements by DVdm. I would also like to caution Esem0 that when you open an RfC, you shouldn't spend time arguing and belittling editors that come to this page to help. It weakens your position as a neutral editor, IMO. Consensus is clearly that the sourcing should not be included. Let's make sure it is removed and move on. StarHOG (Talk) 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice, but please explain this: Both Tercer and XOR'easter, who were involved in the main discussion, have provided a full vote with repetitions here, but am I not supposed to respond? From the outset of this RfC I find belittling comments, which I opt to ignore. If you disagree, I can point to them all, provided you allow me. Please point to my belittling comments too, which I cannot find. Can you see the symmetry? Let us be fair. Are you advising me that I am not supposed to oppose in order to strengthen my position? Esem0 (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, yes, that is the point of an RfC. Editors come and review the article and the prior arguments and then post their "judgement". The RfC area isn't really a place for you to argue with editors that have come to do this. None of the postings you have made in response to RfC editors is new material, you are just continuing to argue your already stated arguments, so you're wasting time. It doesn't look like things are going your way in this RfC, sometimes you have to take a step back and realize that, no matter how passionately you believe in "your side" of things. This is Wikipedia and so much here is done by consensus, not by arguing something over and over and never giving up. StarHOG (Talk) 14:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to abstain from ″opposing″ here. I understand that this does not mean a complete block out from commenting even in the face of irregularities during this process. Assuming the latter, please advise if Tercer and XOR’easter acted properly by repeating their arguments here too. (I asked this before). Actually, if you take a closer look, you can ascertain that I did not oppose DVdm, or JohnFromPinckney or Ravesfire or StarHog in the first place. I had to intervene only when good order was broken. When DVdm with the introductory comment claimed that I am wasting time, I had not spoken here at all. That was out of order but I let go. Hence, the accusation of belittling is unwarranted. You must be fair if you like to apply the good rules of discussion here. Esem0 (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I concur that this is an unreliable source (something I would expect to find on viXra rather than on arXiv) and moreover represents a fringe theory that does not belong on Wikipedia. Brienanni (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If I may just insert an explanatory excerpt from WP:FRINGE: ″Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.″ We are not writing an article about a fringe theory, while the proposed shortest insertion in an existing article warns against notability. It does not make the source appear more notable than what it is. My concern is that both WP:RS and WP:FRINGE are interpreted differently by different editors. This is just one of several sources under ″Recent activity″ and nothing more. Thanks Esem0 (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Push gravity theory: an appropriate title
From the article itself, it is clear that Fatio was the originator of this theory. A better title would have been "Fatio's theory of gravitation". Fatio's work was by no means lesser or less significant or important than whatever Le Sage's follow up work was. Any historical references on this issue are no reason to summarily replace the originator by a follower in the title of the theory. Any related issues, if they apply, can be taken up in the opening paragraphs of the article and not become engraved in the article's title. Push gravity is not Le Sage's theory. The title is wrong. It is now proposed to rectify this problem by a neutral title like "Push gravity theory. Esem0 (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Subtitles of deprecated style in this article
Because this article is written in deprecated style (with headings of deprecated type
 * Kelvin and Tait: marking ";Kelvin and Tait" instead subsection level 3 like "===Kelvin and Tait===" giving

Kelvin and Tait
Deprecated ";Kelvin and Tait" or, ";Kelvin and Tait:" marking is les friendly to section editing, and possibly les friendly for linking parts of the article from elsewhere, so I intend to change all ; headings in the article to appropriate section level headings (one level lower then existing sections where currently ;headings are found, typically level 3). Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 * WP:PSEUDOHEAD, a section in WP:Manual of style discusses use and misuse of semicolumn markup ";", also regarding screen readers. It seems what I intend to would be a good thing to do. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

✅; while previewing my changes, I spotted several messages regarding script messages regarding citations. When I reviewed all the article (with no additional changes, there were 4 such messages (for Citation errors and Citation maintenance messages, and for Cite book errors and Cite book maintenance messages), so those are template and message types; actual number of problematic spots is not known. If anyone addresses that before me, (s)he's very welcome. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I looked a bit into citation error and maintenance messages. I also created my common.css where I added parameters that should switch on display of error messages, and did my best to refresh browser cache as instructed.
 * Then I opened the article in edit source mode and then preview. At the begining of prevew this was shown:
 * This is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved! → Go to editing area
 * Script warning: One or more templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
 * Script warning: One or more templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).
 * Script warning: One or more templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
 * Script warning: One or more templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help).
 * Further result was illogical:
 * Four maintenance messages concerning cite book were displayed, as expected.
 * No maintenance messages concerning citation was found, unexpected.
 * No error message regarding either template was found, unexpected.
 * Maybe I didn't succeed to clear the cache yet, or made an error creating, or in the contents, of my common.css, but maintenance messages concerning citation would need to be shown regardless of css, if it was shown in preview box. I gave up about displaying and finding those messages (for now). Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems the illogical situation described above was really connected with incomplete clearing of the cache. I either did succeeded to make a null edit of whole article (my previous edits were per sections, so possibly only those sections were renewed in cache or something like that. Now I did actual, prepared as whole article edit, previewed, but not published yet, which to show new contents in preview had to clear and renew the page in cache; or some necessary time passed. Now all four types shown in the beginning of the preview can be found by ctrl-F: I targeted strings    and    this time, and several of all four types were found, as expected. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe I didn't succeed to clear the cache yet, or made an error creating, or in the contents, of my common.css, but maintenance messages concerning citation would need to be shown regardless of css, if it was shown in preview box. I gave up about displaying and finding those messages (for now). Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems the illogical situation described above was really connected with incomplete clearing of the cache. I either did succeeded to make a null edit of whole article (my previous edits were per sections, so possibly only those sections were renewed in cache or something like that. Now I did actual, prepared as whole article edit, previewed, but not published yet, which to show new contents in preview had to clear and renew the page in cache; or some necessary time passed. Now all four types shown in the beginning of the preview can be found by ctrl-F: I targeted strings    and    this time, and several of all four types were found, as expected. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Le Sage's theory of gravitation


text:
Talk:RJR Nabisco

Ritz chips
Toasted original chips 2604:2D80:B783:1D00:8171:BC2:111:3BF2 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:RJR Nabisco


text:
Goat's rue

Goat's rue may refer to:

 * Galega officinalis
 * Tephrosia lindheimeri
 * Tephrosia virginiana, native to the United States

title: Goat's rue


text:
Wei Zheng

Wei Zheng (580 – 11 February 643 ), courtesy name Xuancheng, posthumous name Duke Wenzhen of Zheng, was a Chinese politician and historian. He served as a chancellor of the Tang dynasty for about 13 years during the reign of Emperor Taizong. He was also the lead editor of the official history of the Sui dynasty, the Book of Sui, which was composed in 636.

Wei Zheng was born to a poor family in modern Hebei, and joined Li Mi's rebellion against the Sui dynasty in his youth. After Li Mi's submission to the Tang Empire, Wei Zheng became a Tang official and eventually served on the staff of Li Jiancheng, the Crown Prince and eldest son of Emperor Gaozu, the Tang dynasty's founding emperor. As such, he served against the interests of Li Jiancheng's younger brother, Li Shimin (the Prince of Qin), with whom Li Jiancheng was locked in an intense rivalry. In 626, Li Shimin ambushed and killed Li Jiancheng, and then effectively forced Emperor Gaozu to yield the throne to him. Rather than punishing Wei Zheng, however, he was impressed with Wei's faithfulness to Li Jiancheng, and he made Wei an important official, eventually a chancellor. Wei Zheng's promotion to this position gave him far broader freedom to criticise others, particularly the emperor, than other officers of the court. He emphasized propriety and opposed overextending the state. His advice and criticism were not always accepted, but in accordance with Confucian etiquette, the emperor would concede to his suggestions with some regularity.

After Wei Zheng's death in 643, the emperor commented that he was a mirror to show the mistakes of the court, and built an elaborate tomb for him near his own imperial tomb and betrothed one of his daughters, Princess Hengshan, to Wei Shuyu (魏叔玉), Wei Zheng's son. Subsequently, as a result of false accusations made by others in the court, the stone monument that Emperor Taizong had built for Wei Zheng was destroyed, and Emperor Taizong cancelled the planned marriage between Princess Hengshan and Wei Shuyu. However, after the failure of the campaign against Goguryeo in 646, Emperor Taizong, believing that Wei Zheng would have stopped him from going on the campaign had he lived longer, restored the stone monument. Wei Zheng's effect and influence has been examined by many historians long after his death. Wei Zheng is also revered as a minor god of doorways in parts of Taiwan.

Background
Wei Zheng was born in 580, shortly before the founding of Sui dynasty in 581. His family was from Julu Commandery (鉅鹿, roughly modern Xingtai, Hebei). His father Wei Changxian (魏長賢) was a county magistrate during Northern Qi. Wei lost his father early in life and was poor, but had great expectations, not caring about making wealth. At one point, he became a Taoist monk. He favored studying, and as he saw that the rule of Emperor Yang of Sui was beginning to make Sui fall into a state of confusion, he particularly paid attention to strategic works.

Service under Li Mi
At the end of Emperor Yang's reign, there were many rebellions against Sui rule. One of the major ones was led by Li Mi the Duke of Wei. In 617, the secretary general of Wuyang Commandery (武陽, part of modern Handan, Hebei), Yuan Baozang (元寶藏), rebelled against the Sui as well and submitted to Li Mi. He invited Wei Zheng to serve on his staff, as his secretary. Wei subsequently drafted submissions from Yuan to Li Mi, suggesting that Li Mi attack and seize nearby Wei Commandery (魏郡, also part of modern Handan) and a large food storage that Emperor Yang built, Liyang Storage (黎陽倉, in modern Hebi, Henan). Li Mi was impressed, and when he found out that Wei wrote the submissions, he requested Yuan send Wei to him. He subsequently made Wei his secretary.

In 618, Li Mi was ready for a major confrontation with the Sui general Wang Shichong, who had seized power at the eastern capital Luoyang as the regent to Sui's last emperor Yang Tong (Emperor Yang's grandson). Wei spoke with Li Mi's secretary general Zheng Ting (鄭頲), advocating that Li Mi take a defensive stance, refusing to engage Wang and draining Wang's food supplies. Zheng rejected the proposal, and the proposal apparently was never submitted to Li Mi. Subsequently, when Li Mi engaged Wang, Wang defeated him. Believing that he could no longer hold out against Wang, Li Mi fled to Tang dynasty territory and surrendered to Emperor Gaozu of Tang. Wei followed him to Tang territory. Subsequently, with Li Mi's major general Xu Shiji (later known as Li Shiji) still holding the Liyang region, Wei requested that Emperor Gaozu send him to Liyang to persuade Xu to submit to Tang as well. Xu did so.

Emperor Gaozu's reign
In spring 619, with Yuan Baozang being attacked by Yuwen Huaji the Emperor of Xu (who had led the coup that killed Emperor Yang in 618), Wei went to Yuan to persuade him to submit to Tang. Yuan did so. Wei apparently subsequently went back to Liyang. In winter 619, when Dou Jiande the Prince of Xia, one of Tang's major rivals, attacked and captured Liyang, Wei was among the people captured by Dou, along with Emperor Gaozu's cousin Li Shentong (李神通) the Prince of Huai'an, Emperor Gaozu's sister Princess Tong'an, and Li Shiji's father Li Gai (李蓋). (Li Shiji was not captured, but several days later felt compelled to surrender to Dou as well, as his father had become a captive.) Dou made Wei his secretary.

In 621, Dou, while trying to aid Wang, under siege at Luoyang by the Tang general Li Shimin the Prince of Qin (Emperor Gaozu's son), was defeated and captured by Li Shimin. The Xia officials initially fled back to the Xia capital Ming Prefecture (洺州, in modern Handan as well) subsequently decided to surrender, and Wei followed Pei Ju back to the Tang capital Chang'an. Emperor Gaozu's oldest son Li Jiancheng the Crown Prince had long heard of Wei's talents, and he invited Wei to serve as his librarian. In 622, with Dou's general Liu Heita having risen against Tang and captured most of former Xia territory, Wei and another staff member, Wang Gui, suggested to Li Jiancheng that due to Li Shimin's accomplishments and fame, he posed a threat to Li Jiancheng, and that Li Jiancheng needed some victories of his own—indicating that he should volunteer to attack Liu. Li Jiancheng agreed, and later in 622 crushed Liu's forces. (Liu was betrayed by his own subordinate Zhuge Dewei (諸葛德威) in early 623 and turned over to Li Jiancheng; Li Jiancheng killed him.) As the brothers' rivalry intensified over the year, Wei repeatedly suggested to Li Jiancheng that he must act first and kill Li Shimin. Li Jiancheng could not resolve to do so.

In 626, however, Li Shimin, believing that Li Jiancheng would kill him, ambushed Li Jiancheng and another brother who supported Li Jiancheng, Li Yuanji the Prince of Qi, at Xuanwu Gate, killing them. He then effectively forced Emperor Gaozu to create him crown prince. He summoned Wei and rebuked him, "Why did you alienate us brothers?" Wei's colleagues were all fearful for him, but Wei, instead of begging for forgiveness, stated boldly, "If the Crown Prince had listened to my words, he would not have suffered this disaster." Li Shimin, who had been impressed with Wei himself, was further impressed by the answer, and he changed his attitude and treated Wei with respect, inviting Wei to serve on his own staff. Subsequently, when he sent Wei on a mission to pacify the eastern prefectures, Wei, believing that no one would believe Li Shimin's words that Li Jiancheng's and Li Yuanji's staff members would be spared if some of them, then under arrest, were not released, ordered them released—an act that Li Shimin was pleased with and impressed by. Later in 626, Emperor Gaozu yielded the throne to Li Shimin (as Emperor Taizong). Wei continued to serve in the imperial administration.

Emperor Taizong's reign
After Emperor Taizong took the throne, he created Wei the Baron of Julu. Later in 626, when Emperor Taizong buried Li Jiancheng and Li Yuanji with honors due imperial princes, Wei Zheng and Wang Gui requested permission to attend the funeral procession. Emperor Taizong agreed, and further ordered that all officials who served on Li Jiancheng's and Li Yuanji's staffs to attend the funeral procession.

It was said that when Emperor Taizong first took the throne, he was looking for ways to improve his reign. As he believed that Wei had great abilities in governance, he often invited Wei into his own bedroom to converse with him. Wei had the fortitude to speak up for what he saw to be right, and Emperor Taizong often gladly accepted his suggestions. In 627, when it was rumored that Feng Ang (馮盎), a former Sui official who had submitted to Tang several years prior, had started a rebellion, and Emperor Taizong wanted to send forces to attack Feng, Wei advised against it, pointing out that Feng did not advance outside his own territories and appeared to be simply fearful that he had been accused of treason. Under Wei's suggestion, Emperor Taizong sent the official Li Gongyan (李公淹) to comfort Feng; Feng then showed his submission by sending his son Feng Zhidai (馮智戴) to follow Li Gongyan to Chang'an to pay homage to Emperor Taizong. Pleased, Emperor Taizong stated, "Wei had me send a messenger, and as a result the Lingnan region was pacified, better than if 100,000 men were sent. He must receive an award." He awarded Wei with silk. Around that time, he also made Wei a deputy head of the Department of State Affairs.

Later that year, Wei was accused of nepotism. Emperor Taizong had the imperial censor Wen Yanbo investigate, and Wen found no evidence of wrongdoing. Wen nevertheless stated to Emperor Taizong, "Wei did not care about public perception or appearance of conflict of interest. Even though he had no wrongful intent, he should still be rebuked." Emperor Taizong agreed and rebuked Wei, but Wei bluntly refused to accept the rebuke, and Emperor Taizong later retracted the rebuke after concluding that Wei was correct. Throughout the rest of Wei's career, this became a pattern—that Wei would dare to speak against the emperor's opinions or acts despite Emperor Taizong's anger, and while Emperor Taizong did not accept everything that Wei said, he always treated Wei with respect.

In 629, Emperor Taizong made Wei the head of the Palace Library, but gave him the additional designation Canyu Chaozheng (參豫朝政), making him a de facto chancellor. Later that year, when the assistant censor Quan Wanji (權萬紀) accused the chancellors Fang Xuanling and Wang Gui of improper selection of officials, Emperor Taizong initially ordered Hou Junji to investigate. Wei, however, pointed out that both Fang and Wang were trusted officials who should be given free rein and not have the details of their acts be picked on. Emperor Taizong agreed and cancelled the investigations.

In 630, the general Li Jing had inflicted a heavy blow to the forces of Eastern Tujue's Jiali Khan Ashina Duobi, and later that year, after Ashina Duobi was captured, Eastern Tujue chieftains submitted to Tang. Emperor Taizong requested opinions on what to do with Eastern Tujue's people. There were many different opinions, but the two opinions that Emperor Taizong appeared to consider the most were the ones by Wen and Wei, who debated extensively before Emperor Taizong. Wen argued that, pursuant to precedents of what Eastern Han dynasty did with the Xiongnu, the Eastern Tujue people should be placed within Tang borders but organized in tribal form, to serve as a defense perimeter on the northern border. Wei advocated that the Eastern Tujue people be placed north of Tang borders, believing that they would pose a threat if placed within Tang borders. Wen, however, argued that the Eastern Tujue people could eventually be assimilated and become an asset to the Tang state, and Emperor Taizong agreed with Wen. He established 10 prefectures to settle the Eastern Tujue people and made the major chieftains the prefects, while inviting a number of Eastern Tujue nobles to serve as generals at Chang'an.

Late in 630, Qu Wentai (麴文泰), the king of Gaochang, was set to arrive at Chang'an to pay homage to Emperor Taizong. When the other Xiyu states heard this, they wanted to send emissaries as well, and Emperor Taizong initially ordered Qu's official Yanda Gegan (厭怛紇干) back to Gaochang to gather the emissaries to lead them to Chang'an. Wei advised against doing so—pointing out that if that happened, Tang would become deeply involved in Xiyu matters, and that the Tang state was not yet in a position of doing so. Emperor Taizong agreed and ordered Yanda to stop.

In 631, despite Wei's advice against it, Emperor Taizong began setting up a feudal scheme where the great contributors to Tang rule would be granted posts as prefectural prefects, to be inherited by their descendants. (Subsequently, however, due to other officials' opposition—the strongest of which came from Emperor Taizong's brother-in-law Zhangsun Wuji—Emperor Taizong cancelled the feudal scheme.)

In 632, at the urgings of many officials who believed that he should go to Mount Tai to pay homage to heaven and earth (known as Fengshan), Emperor Taizong considered doing so, but Wei opposed, and this led to a famous conversation between them, which showcased Wei's personal philosophy against overextending the state:

Emperor Taizong asked, "You oppose my conducting of Fengshan''. Is it that my accomplishments were not great enough?" Wei responded, "They are great enough." Emperor Taizong asked, "Is it that my virtues were not great enough?" Wei responded, "They are great enough." Emperor Taizong asked, "Is it that China is not pacified enough?" Wei responded, "It is pacified enough." Emperor Taizong asked, "Is it that the barbaric nations have not submitted to me?" Wei responded, "They have." Emperor Taizong asked, "Is it that we have not had good harvests?" Wei responded, "We have had good harvests." Emperor Taizong asked, "Is it that signs of blessings have not occurred?" Wei responded, "They have." Emperor Taizong asked, "Then, why is it that I still cannot conduct Fengshan?"''

Wei responded, "Even though Your Imperial Majesty has accomplished these six achievements, we are still inheriting the state left after the great confusion at the end of Sui rule. The population is greatly reduced and has not recovered. The food stores are still empty. When Your Imperial Majesty heads east [to Mount Tai], the thousands of horses and wagons require supplies everywhere they go, and it is difficult for the local government to do so. In addition, at Fengshan'', the rulers and chiefs of the nations should all attend you. However, from the Yi and Luo Rivers to the Sea and Mount Dai [(岱山, another name for Mount Tai)], there are still few villages and few people. The weeds grow thickly without end, and this would be inviting barbarians to our abdomen and showing them our weaknesses. Further, even if we greatly reward them, they would not necessarily be pleased, having come from afar. Even if you exempt the people from taxes for many years, you still cannot compensate them for their losses. Why would Your Imperial Majesty want to simply hold a great Fengshan ceremony but receive real detriments?"''

Incidentally, at that time, many prefectures around the Yellow River were suffering floods, so Emperor Taizong gave up the idea.

Around the same time, there was an incident when Emperor Taizong visited his summer palace Jiucheng Palace (九成宮, in modern Baoji, Shaanxi). He sent some of his servants back to Chang'an, and they were staying at the official lodges at Weichuan County (湋川, also in modern Baoji), when the chancellors Li Jing and Wang Gui arrived. The county officials displaced the imperial servants to house Li and Wang. When Emperor Taizong heard this, he felt disrespected, and initially were going to punish the county officials. Wei disagreed, pointing out that Li and Wang were far more important and honored than the imperial servants. Emperor Taizong relented and did not punish the county officials, Li, or Wang.

Emperor Taizong was about to marry the Princess Changle to Zhangsun Wuji's son Zhangsun Chong (長孫沖). As the princess was born of Empress Zhangsun and was his favorite daughter, Emperor Taizong ordered that her dowry had to exceed that for his sister, the Princess Yongjia. Wei advised against it, pointing out that this was contrary to Emperor Ming of Han's observation that his sons should not be as honored as his brothers. Emperor Taizong agreed and also informed Empress Zhangsun, who was greatly impressed with Wei's honest advice, and therefore, after receiving permission from Emperor Taizong, she had her eunuchs send rewards of money and silk to Wei, praising him for his honesty. On another occasion, after Emperor Taizong returned from an imperial gathering, he was angry and yelled, "Let me find a chance to kill this farmer!" Empress Zhangsun asked whom he was referring to, and he replied, "I am referring to Wei Zheng. He always find a way to insult me in front of everyone in the imperial hall!" Empress Zhangsun retreated to her bedchambers and put on the official empress gown; standing solemnly, she prepared to bow to Emperor Taizong. He was surprised, and asked her what the reason was. She responded, "I have heard that only a most able emperor will have subordinates who have integrity. Wei shows this much integrity because you are an able emperor. How can I not congratulate you?" Emperor Taizong's anger turned to happiness, and he did not punish Wei. Soon, Wei was created a duke.

Later that year, there was an occasion when Emperor Taizong held a feast for the high-level officials at Danxiao Hall (丹霄殿), and at the feast, Zhangsun Wuji made the comment, "Wang Gui and Wei Zheng were our enemies before. I did not know at the time that we would get the chance to feast together." Emperor Taizong responded, "Wang and Wei served their master faithfully, and that was why I retained them. I do have a question: Every time that Wei gave me adverse advice and I did not accept it, then he refused to discuss the matter any further. Why?" Wei responded, "I give adverse advise only when I believe that something should not be done. If Your Imperial Majesty did not follow my advice, then if I continued to speak about it, the matter would be settled and would be done. That is why I spoke no further." Emperor Taizong responded, "You can first continue planning and then try to advise me again. What harm is there?" Wei responded, "It was written that Emperor Shun warned his officials, 'Do not obey me in my presence and make secret speeches against what I do.' If I know that something is wrong, but I continue to discuss it with Your Imperial Majesty, then I would be obeying you in your presence. That is not how Houji (后稷) and Ziqi (子棄, both legendary great officials during Emperor Shun's reign) served Emperor Shun." Emperor Taizong laughed and stated, "Everyone says that Wei is arrogant and careless, but I call him 'delicate'; this shows it."

In 633, after Wang was accused of leaking palace secrets, Emperor Taizong made Wei Shizhong (侍中) -- the head of the examination bureau of government and a chancellor post—to replace Wang. At that time, there were also a large backlog of legal matters being handled by the executive bureau, and Emperor Taizong temporarily assigned Wei to handle them. It was said that while Wei did not study law, he reasoned logically, and he was able to make proper decisions.

In 634, when Emperor Taizong wanted to send officials to visit the circuits to see how the people were doing in the provinces, Li Jing recommended Wei. Emperor Taizong, however, responded, "Wei needs to point out my faults, and I cannot let him go." Instead, he sent 13 officials, including Li Jing and Xiao Yu, out to the circuits for this mission.

Emperor Taizong had commissioned the compilation of several official histories of Tang's predecessor dynasties—commissioning Linghu Defen and Cen Wenben to compile the Book of Zhou (Northern Zhou's history); Kong Yingda and Xu Jingzong to compile the Book of Sui (Sui dynasty's history); Yao Silian to compile the Book of Liang (Liang dynasty's history) and Book of Chen (Chen dynasty's history); and Li Baiyao to compile the Book of Northern Qi (Northern Qi's history). Wei was in charge of writing commentaries on a number of important persons whose biographies were contained in these histories, and after the histories were completed around 636, Emperor Taizong awarded him silk and upgraded his title to Duke of Zheng. (For reasons unclear, Wei was given credit as the lead editor of the Book of Sui, but not the other works.)

Also in 636, Wei tried to resign on account of eye illnesses. Emperor Taizong relieved him from his post as Shizhong and gave him the honorific post of Tejin (特進), but still gave him full authority as if he were still Shizhong. He also continued to designate him Canyi Deshi (參議得失), keeping him as a de facto chancellor.

By this point, Emperor Taizong had begun to favor his son Li Tai over his oldest son and crown prince Li Chengqian. When accusations were made that the high-level officials were disrespectful to Li Tai, Emperor Taizong was initially angry, rebuking the high-level officials. However, Wei responded that those high-level officials should, in fact, be more honored than the imperial princes, as the state's key personnel, and Emperor Taizong, seeing that Wei was correct, apologized.

In 637, a new code of rites, coauthored by Wei and Fang, was completed. Also in 637, Wei submitted a petition containing a number of advice for Emperor Taizong to continuously examine himself. This petition was later titled the Petition on Ten Thoughts (十思疏) and became a famous document often held up as examples of how officials should advise the emperor.

In 638, there was yet another incident where Wang, by then the minister of ceremonies, suggested that high-level officials should not have to yield to imperial princes when their processions meet. Emperor Taizong initially saw this as an insult to the imperial princes—particularly Li Tai, whom he was secretly considering replacing Li Chengqian with—and he made the statement, "Life is uncertain. If the Crown Prince should die early, how do you know that one of the princes would not be your lord in the future. How can you disrespect them?" Wei, seeing what was happening, spoke bluntly, "Ever since Zhou Dynasty, succession is always from father to son, not to brothers, to prevent plotting by younger sons and stop infighting at their origin. This is what the rulers need to be careful about." Emperor Taizong thereafter approved Wang's proposal.

In 638, Emperor Taizong, celebrating the birth of a grandson, held a feast for imperial officials, at which he made the comment:

"Before I took the throne, it was by Fang Xuangling's assistance that I was able to seize power. After I took the throne, it was by Wei Zheng's assistance that I was able to have my errors corrected."

He then awarded both Fang and Wei an imperial sword. Also around that time, Wei advised him to be cognizant that he was not accepting adverse advice from others as he had previously. Emperor Taizong agreed to examine himself more carefully.

In 639, after Ashina Duobi's nephew Ashina Jiesheshuai formed a plot to ambush Emperor Taizong, but his plot was discovered and destroyed, Emperor Taizong created a Tujue prince who had served him faithfully, Li Simo (né Ashina Simo) the Prince of Huaihua, as the khan of a newly recreated Eastern Tujue state (as Qilibi Khan), and had him take the Eastern Tujue people outside of Tang territory, to be settled between Tang and Xueyantuo. At that time, Emperor Taizong made the comment that he nearly suffered because he did not listen to Wei's suggestion in 630.

In 640, after a number of years during which Qu Wentai, initially submissive to Tang, became hostile to Tang interests and had allied himself with Western Tujue, Emperor Taizong sent Hou Junji to conquer Gaochang. Qu Wentai died from illness during the siege, and his son Qu Zhisheng (麴智盛) surrendered. Wei advised that Emperor Taizong should keep Qu on the throne, as an ally—a suggestion that Chu Suiliang also spoke of—but Emperor Taizong disagreed and annexed Gaochang directly. (Emperor Taizong would later regret this in 642, when the need to station soldiers at Gaochang became more and more expensive in monetary and human costs.) When Hou's lieutenant Xue Wanjun (薛萬均) was subsequently accused of raping Gaochang women, Emperor Taizong was going to hold cross-examination sessions between Xue and the alleged victims, but on Wei's urging—that whatever the results were, the empire would be harmed—Emperor Taizong cancelled the investigation.

In 641, Fang and Gao Shilian drew rebuke from Emperor Taizong when they inquired of the deputy imperial architect, Dou Desu (竇德素) of imperial construction projects — which Emperor Taizong saw as an encroachment on his liberty. However, Wei pointed out that chancellors were supposed to be responsible for all affairs of state, and Emperor Taizong, realizing that he had erred, was humbled.

In 642, Wei was ill, and Emperor Taizong and he exchanged letters with each other expressing how they missed each other, and in Wei's letters, he continued to give adverse advice to Emperor Taizong. Meanwhile, as Wei's mansion had no large halls, Emperor Taizong diverted the construction material that he was going to use for an imperial hall and constructed a hall for Wei in five days, and further awarded him with folding screens, bedding, a small table, and canes, hoping to comfort him. When Wei wrote to thank him, Emperor Taizong wrote back, stating, "I honor you for the people and the state, not for you. Why thank me?" Meanwhile, Chu, himself by now developing a reputation for offering adverse advice, was pointing out that Emperor Taizong's favors for Li Tai were creating uncertainties for officials, and Emperor Taizong, trying to stem the rumors that Li Tai would displace Li Chengqian, appointed Wei as a senior advisor to Li Chengqian. When Wei grew better, he personally went to the palace to decline, but Emperor Taizong pointed out the symbolic importance of having someone as important as himself serve as Li Chengqian's advisor, stating that even if Wei could only lie on the bed, his being named a senior advisor to Li Chengqian would help clarify the situation. Wei relented and accepted.

In spring 643, Wei was gravely ill. Emperor Taizong sent numerous messengers to attend to Wei's illness, and further had the official Li Anyan (李安儼) stay at Wei's mansion to oversee Wei's care. He also personally visited Wei, with Li Chengqian, and he pointed at his daughter Princess Hengshan and promised to give her to Wei's son Wei Shuyu in marriage. Wei died soon thereafter, and Emperor Taizong buried Wei with great honors and luxurious funeral supplies, although Wei's wife Lady Pei, pointing out that Wei was himself frugal in living, declined most of the luxuries. Wei was buried near the tomb of Empress Zhangsun (who died in 636), where Emperor Taizong would eventually himself be buried. He also commissioned a stone monument for Wei, and personally wrote the text of the monument. He missed Wei greatly and stated:

"Using copper as a mirror allows one to keep his clothes neat. Using history as a mirror allows one to see the future trends. Using a person as a mirror allows one to see what is right and what is wrong. When Wei Zheng died, I lost a mirror."

Later that year, when Emperor Taizong commissioned the Portraits at Lingyan Pavilion to commemorate the 24 great contributors to Tang rule, Wei's was one of the portraits commissioned.

Later in 643, however, Li Chengqian was found to have plotted with Hou to overthrow Emperor Taizong, as he was apprehensive that Emperor Taizong would displace him with Li Tai. Emperor Taizong executed Hou and the other coconspirators, while deposing and exiling Li Chengqian (although he also blamed Li Tai's machinations for Li Chengqian's downfall and exiled him as well, creating their younger brother Li Zhi crown prince instead). As Wei had previously repeatedly recommended Hou and Du Zhenglun, a key advisor to Li Chengqian who was also exiled, as chancellor material, Emperor Taizong suspected Wei of factionalism. Also, it was discovered at the time that Wei had recorded his adverse advice to Emperor Taizong and given them to Chu, who was the imperial historian as well, displeasing Emperor Taizong further. He therefore cancelled the planned marriage between Princess Hengshan and Wei Shuyu and destroyed the stone monument that he had commissioned for Wei.

In 645, after Emperor Taizong carried out a failed attempt to conquer Goguryeo, he regretted the campaign and stated, "If Wei Zheng were still alive, he would not have allowed me to go on this campaign." He sent imperial messengers to make sacrifices to Wei and restore the stone monument, and he also summoned Wei's wife and children, greatly awarding them.

Veneration
Wei Zheng is venerated as a door god in some Chinese and Taoist temples, usually in partnership with Li Shiji.

Popular culture

 * Portrayed by Maeng Ho-rim in 2006-2007 SBS TV series Yeon Gaesomun.

title: Wei Zheng


text:
Talk:Celebdaq

PopEx External Link
The PopEx external hyperlink at the bottom of this page does not work. I am not entirely sure that this website even exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.108.151 (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

 * popex.com did exist at the time, the site went in about 2003. I'm sure popex used to have its own wikipedia entry. 2A04:204:2501:1C00:2CE4:988C:2685:C962 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Celebdaq


text:
Godiva (poem)

"Godiva" is a poem written in 1840 by the poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson when he was returning from Coventry to London, after his visit to Warwickshire in that year. It was first published in 1842. No alteration was made in any subsequent edition.

The poem is based on the story of the Countess Godiva, an Anglo-Saxon lady who, according to legend, rode naked through the streets of Coventry after her husband promised that he would remit oppressive taxes on his tenants if she agreed to do so.

title: Godiva (poem)


text:
Erigyius

Erigyius (in Greek Ἐριγυιoς; died 328 BC), a Mytilenaean, son of Larichus, was an officer in Alexander the Great's army. He had been driven into banishment by Philip II, king of Macedon, because of his faithful attachment to Alexander, and returned when the latter came to the throne in 336 BC. At the battle of Gaugamela, 331 BC, he commanded the cavalry of the allies, as he did also when Alexander set out in 330 BC from Ecbatana in pursuit of Darius III. In the same year Erigyius was entrusted with the command of one of the three divisions with which Alexander invaded Hyrcania. He was also among the generals sent against Satibarzanes, whom he slew in battle with his own hand. In 329 BC, together with Craterus and Hephaestion, and with the assistance of Aristander, a soothsayer, he endeavoured to dissuade Alexander from crossing the Jaxartes river against the Scythians. In 328 BC he fell in a battle against the Bactrian fugitives.

title: Erigyius


text: Category:Canadian equestrians

title: Category:Canadian equestrians


text: Category:Dutch equestrians

title: Category:Dutch equestrians


text:
User talk:Mukhtiarchachar

Hello, my name is Mukhtiyar Ali Chachar Im going to tell u about Computer Hacking

Hacking is a term that has often been used by the media to describe the various activities of certain computer users (in a poor way, sadly). The movie Hackers (movie) did a lot to influence the populace and the press this way. There are some fantastic books that help to explain what a real hacker is like:

Hackers, by Steven Levy The Devouring Fungus, by Karla Jennings Free as in Freedom, by Sam Williams Just for Fun, by Linus Torvalds The Cathedral and the Bazaar, by Eric Raymond This wikibook will also shed some light on hacking, and what hackers actually do (and who they actually are).

Hackers are people who tend to play around with their knowledge of computers to make things happen and generally have methods of getting around the systems which are not meant to be got around. First, the term hackers is explained. This is one of the most important chapters to read, for it will give you a insight of what hacking really is. Next, the history of computing and hackers is described. This might explain a couple of things suggested wrongly (maybe by accident) by the media. The 'hacking-culture' follows up next and 'finally' the real thing is assesed. (Note: These methods are illegal if used wrongly, yet the method to prevent or 'cure' this 'attack' is given as well to remain as objective as possible).

I would appreciate if anyone posts stuff which will help the world dealing with security and 'dealing' with hackers (mostly crackers and scriptkiddies).

The Jargon File or New Hackers dictionary defines the term hacker quite nicely, It also does an exceptional job of pointing out that one does not need to be affiliated with computers at all to be considered a hacker.

The excerpt from The Jargon File:

hacker: n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. RFC1392, the Internet Users' Glossary, usefully amplifies this as: A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating hack value. 4. A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it; as in ‘a Unix hacker’. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover sensitive information by poking around. Hence password hacker, network hacker. The correct term for this sense is cracker. [edit] A perspective view on hackers The first part of this book is intended for the reading of non-hackers in order to build an understanding of who hackers really are. Don't skip this part if you want to obtain an objective view on hacking. First of all, the definition of hackers is redefined, since a lot of commercial put it in a rather commercial perspective (so to say). Then, their history is covered. This 21 century hold many 'miracles', so hacking should be casted in the world of technology if people were to understand them. Yet the hacking-culture is covered in a seperate chapter. This is due the not-so simple way in which hackers tend to work. Finally, ethics, shared by most hackers are covered so that you know what hackers stand up for. link title

[edit] Terminology Hack is an onomatopoeic verb describing the noise and actions of chopping at something with a blade (i.e.: He hacked away at the underbrush with a machete), or a particularly nasty cough (i.e.: The chainsmoker hacked up some orange phlegm), but which also came to describe the act of typing on a typewriter, for the same reason (the annoying, incessant HACK HACK HACK, Ding! CRASH! HACK HACK HACK, &c). From there it became associated not only with the action itself, but also those doing the typing. For example, a "hack"--a bad writer/journalist--would "hack out" a poorly researched or unoriginal story on his typewriter. While the quieter tapping of computer keyboards began to replace the harsh noise of the typewriter, the old terminology was carried over to the new technology. Thus, the original "hackers," (long before the PC or word processors,) were merely called that because they would spend their days "hacking away" at their console keyboards, writing code. (It's worth noting that, when computing was in its infancy and console time at the giant mainframes was scarce, programmers would often hand-write code or type it out on typewriters before they manually plugged it into the machine. Also, the earliest consoles were basically automated typewriters.)

Nowadays, a hacker is, within the software development community, any skilled programmer, especially among open-source developers. A "hack," in turn, is a quick-and-dirty patch, fix, or utility which may not be well documented or necessarily reliable, but which gets the job done, whatever that job may be.

Crackers are skilled programmers who exploit the limitations of computer networks, and write up cracks--malicious hacks--to automate the dirty work. These hacks/cracks may attempt to break into remote machines (Ex: He hacked into the schools server to increase his phys-ed grade.), crack passwords (the most useful utility for this is simply called Crack), decrypt data, or simply modify proprietary software so the cracker doesn't have to pay for it(Ex: He downloaded a cracked version of Dreamweaver, because he couldn't afford to buy it.). Viruses, trojans, and worms are also hacks/cracks of a sort. Crackers are especially fond of worms, which spread without user interaction and can be used to create giant, distributed supercomputers that can then be used to attack other computers (the Code Red worm used the combined power of infected computers to flood the White House web server, making it inaccessible to regular users for a time). When a hacker finds a security hole in the software they're using, they hack out some code to patch it. When a cracker finds a hole, they hack out code to exploit it, ideally bringing remote computers under their control.

Script-kiddies use hacks and cracks created by real programmers, but they use their software without really understanding the code that's doing the work.

As indicated above, not all hacks are "malware" (malicious code). User-created shell scripts and batch files that automate tasks (like workstation startup, permission settings, data backup, &c.) are hacks, too. Hacks are tools (script-kiddies are tools too, but anyway). They are hacked out to make someone's life easier, but not necessarily yours.

TV news and, of course, the movie "Hackers" brought the label hacker to the attention of the wider public, but failed to acknowledge its broader meaning, instead using it as a buzzword, so as not to confuse the less informed members of their audience ("Computer programs are written by people? Like books? I thought other computers made them!"). Others have latched on to the grit, glamour, and rebellion the buzzword hacker invokes; thus, they think of hacking as something of a religion. But, in short, it's nothing more than playing around with computer code. You don't even need to be connected to the internets to do some hacking, just learn a programming language.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

MALWARE: Fighting Malicious Code, by Ed Skoudis; Prentice Hall, 2004 Note: This book is wonderful, but requires some technical experience. Maximum Linux Security, Second Edition, by Anonymous; Sams, 2001 Note: There's probably a newer version available, but this was my introduction to computer security. and resources listed above, esp. The Cathedral and the Bazaar

Fleshed out by the Mole of Production 04:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

needs links to definitions of words outside the scope of this mod needs other useful links as most people think a module called "Computer Hacking" should tell them about computer cracking, there should be some actual discussion, even instruction, to that end. there should also be instruction on hardening everyday PCs against remote attacks. [edit] A brief history of computing (with hackers) As long as there have been computers, people were there to 'hack' them. But this activity really hit the headlines when the internet arrived. Yet history teaches that this event wasn't an evil thing at all, hackers actually 'maintain' the internet as it should be. It is unimaginable for the computer/internet society to grow so large without people who were at the cutting edge of technology (hacking internet it's way up). Just imagine how it would be if there weren't any hackers... Most technology you use today would cease to exist. Ask yourself: Would your computer be this powerful if it wasn't put to the edge? Would software be as reliable as they look? Would there be a spiral of new cutting edge innovations?

You can answer all these questions by no. It might seem strange to think positive of hackers, but know that much is done on the edge of society (mostly not in the middle).

So, as it was going. Computers ....

[edit] The hacker-culture Advanced computer users describe themself as hackers; those who use their skills for malevolent purposes are termed "crackers". The term crackers is a term consisting of the meaning of both criminals and hackers (thus forming crackers)(Note: this sounds like bull. Crackers break things, in the sense of cracking the integrity of a computer system; and they work through cracks in security, like climbing through a crack in a wall; but their main act is breaking into computers for example by figuring out the root password, which is like cracking a safe at a bank.--the Mole of Production 04:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)). This means that crackers break the law, yet this isn't enough to get indepth information about the hacker-culture.

In this chapter the main hacker-personalities will be described. In a rather unusual way: the media is used to get to know the real group. This means that you'll be able to understand that some of the people certainly not worth the name hacker...

[edit] The ethics of hacking This is an important chapter (to become) for everybody who wants to know where hackers get their hacking-identity. Their motives and far more important, their shared ethics.

[edit] The process of defending against hackers [edit] The System Administrator's resources [edit] Single user systems There are several simple ways to defend a system against malicious attack although the measures needed vary with the use of the system. A single user server being the easiest to secure. The most obvious method, which is applicable to almost all types of systems, is to only run the servers/daemons which you need. If you run a thousand and one different daemons just because they came with your distro, you have to keep them up to date. If you are only running 2 or 3 you can keep checking for updates confident you didn't forget about that tftp server you never actually use, for example. It should go without saying that you should keep these things up to date, the sooner you can patch/upgrade a vulnerability in a daemon or a remote vuln in the kernel, the less you will be vulnerable to attack.

[edit] Multiple user systems These are the only things needed to reasonably defend a single user system, however when you have many user accounts, even if you trust the people given them ( you can never \really\ trust a user like this but lets not be paranoid), there are extra security measures which need to be implemented. These include strict priviledges for users accounts and a good password policy. It is one thing for an attacker to find a vulnerability in a program, but if they are simply allowed to use a dangerous program with a compromised account you will be under much more risk. If you have a complicated system where files need sharing between users, remember that you can create a seperate group for these users and use the group permissions to allow the users access without allowing world period between changing passwords, a user will use very simple passwords or worse use a Post-it on their monitor.

[edit] Random tidbits of info Attackers often use something called root-kits which make it seem like there is nothing untoward running despite the fact that they have control of your system. They do this by replacing common system utilities with versions which don't report the whole truth; for example, a version of ps which doesn't display processes with "0wned" in their name. These are called root kits as you have to be root (or a similar all powerful user) to install these on a system, wikipedia covers root kits. You can defend against a root kit using a Intrusion Detection System (IDS); however if you suspect that something unpleasant is happening, you can check using a known clean version of the system utilities. These can be found conveniently bundled in a package called busybox which can be found at http://www.busybox.net/download.html.

In such cases it is also possible to create ahead of time statically linked versions of all of the utilites and to then write them to a CDROM that can be used in such situations.

However these days most common root-kits are kernel-based. Which means that root-kits infect (like a parasite) the core of the operating system where all basic operations are performed and where hardware is accessed. The operating system kernel manages process scheduling, memory management, device access and device drivers. When the kernel is infected by a root-kit (backdoor), for example like a device driver, through a loadable kernel module, there is no way to tell if a system is compromised because all input/output in the system can be faked. When the rootkit is in place memory usage, cpu usage, running processes and files and directories can all be hidden.

There is no remedy in this case in a running system. The only way to check a system's integrity in such cases is by booting the system from another read-only medium which is known to be trusted and to verify the integrity of the installed system through this means. It is possible to install integrity checking software such as tripwire or aide (advanced intrusion detection system) which builds a database of signatures of installed files. At a later point in time this database can be used to check if files have been changed and it is then possible to tell if a change was authorized or not.

Attackers could leave more than one means to get back in through the use of backdoors into the system so always make sure you removed all of them. If you have no database of signatures you are usually unable to be certain that you have found all backdoors and then it is recommended to reinstall the system to regain a known clean system

Mukhtiar_here@hotmail.com

Mukhtiar Ali Chachar
'''                       Hello SOme poets infront of u Duniya Se Jo Dare, Usse Kayar Kehte Hain, Duniya Jisse Dare, Usse Shayar Kehte Hain, Biwi Se Jo Dare, Usse Shohar Kehte Hain. - MARHAM Ek Be-wafa ke Zakham Pe Marham Lagane Hum Gaye Marham ki kasam, Marham na mila, Marham ki jagah Mar...hum...gaye..... - Aur bhi bahut si cheeze lut chu-ki hai dil ke saath Ye bataya dosto ne ishq farmane ke baad Is liye kamray ki ek ek cheez "ckeck" karta hoon main "Ek tere aane se pehle, ek tere jaa-ne ke baad" - Accha hua ke tum bewafa nikle Accha hua ke tum bewafa nikle.. Saale wafadaar to kutte hote hain - humne pyaar kiya bade josh ke saath humne pyaar kiya bade josh ke saath par ab pyaar karange badi soch ke saath kyunki kal unhe dekha kisi aur ke saath - Cigarette.. Zaalim tujhse tho yeh cigarette acchi hai Zaalim tujhse tho yeh cigarette acchi hai Dil ko jalaathi hai par hothon se lagi rahthi hai - Tum har raat Tum har raat mere khuwabon mein aao, Tum har raat mujhe yuunhi satao, Melody khao khud jaan jao. - * Mein tere pyar .......... Mein tere pyar mein paagal hua chhaliye, Mein tere pyar mein paagal hua chhaliye, Iodex maliye kaam pe chaliye - * Maine Tumshe Pyar Kiya... meine tuzhse pyar kiya par tere baap ne mujhe pita, tan ke shakti,maan ki shakti,bornvita. - kash ke tere chehre par chicken pox ke dhaag hote, chaand to tu hai he sitaare bhi saath hote. - Kamse kam maut se aisi mujhe ummid nahi thi Ai Jindgi tune to diya dhoke pe dhoka -'''
 * Yashomati maiyya Yashomati maiyya se puche Nandlala, Yashomati maiyya se puche Nandlala, Kya aaya naya ujala,char boondon wala? -
 * Before Marriage: Taqdeer hai magar kismat nahi khulti Tajmahal banana chahata hoon Lekin Mumtaz nahi milti *After Marriage: Taqdeer hai magar kismat nahi khulti Tajmahal banana chahata hoon Lekin Mumtaz nahi marti - *

Mukhtiar_here@hotmail.com

title: User talk:Mukhtiarchachar


text: Category:Austrian equestrians

title: Category:Austrian equestrians


text: Category:Swedish equestrians

title: Category:Swedish equestrians


text:
Upper Coomera State College

Upper Coomera State College (UCSC) is a public, co-educational, P-12, school located in the town of Coomera within the City of Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia. It is administered by the Department of Education, with an enrolment of 1,834 students and a teaching staff of 150, as of 2023. The school serves students from Prep to Year 12, in 3 sub schools: Chisholm Junior School, Jakaara Middle School and Fensham Senior School.

History
The school was established on 1 January 2003.

During 2011, it was said that racial bullying at the school was 'out of hand,' with 5-6 lockdowns occurring within the past 3 years due to the problem. However, the regional director for the Department of Education at the time, Glen Hoppner, stated that the school did not have race-related problems.

In 2013, the school took part in an Australian-wide initiative called 'Day for Daniel' by dressing in red to honour the memory of Daniel Morcombe; a ‘Walk for Daniel’ also occurred.

The school was sent into lockdown after threats via social media were made toward the school in 2018, supposedly by a Year 7 and a Year 9 student; however, it was revealed later that it was not a student, but a 36-year-old woman, who was charged for the incident.

Extra-curricular
The school offers the following Extra-curricular programs:

 * Creative Arts Academy,
 * STEM Academy,
 * Sports Academy,
 * The 'Future Stars' program.

title: Upper Coomera State College