User talk:MesaBoy77

This is my user talk page. I welcome any comments.

Blanking page

I would recommend that you don't blank your page but send portions of your discussion section to an archive. See How to archive a talk page for more information. elephantsandbacon —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MesaBoy77, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi MesaBoy77! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. [1] MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

I see now the link you are objecting to. The link to Sestus was included simply because they were the first commercial company to introduce the concept of virtual token MFA. it was included as a historical reference. However, if you object to that link, I will remove it.

March 2013

At your suggestion, I have added 4 relevant sources for virtual token authentication. There are dozens of other sources I could cite. Please cease removing pertinent information on virtual token forms of authentication. I also note that you do not seem to object to the inclusion of information related to numerous vended (named) authentication "products" cited on these pages (Dallas iButton, Casque, Cryptophoto, UniOTP), nor do you request cited sources for the other sections on this page ("Tokens with a display", "connected tokens", "Casque", "Magnetic Stripe cards", etc).

Conflict of Interest guideline

Hello, MesaBoy77. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Multi-factor authentication, you should consider our guidance on Conflicts of interest and take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. — Brianhe (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Conflict of Interest guideline

Reply by MesaBoy77: Thank you, but I have no COI related to this article. I am a private individual and nothing in this article is "articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with". I am a private individual with an interest in online security and Arizona native American history. I note that the article does appears to contain information related to a number of vended products (see article: "Dallas iButton", "CASQUE", "UniOTP", "CryptoPhoto", "RSA SecurID", "Eclypt"), but I did not add that content, nor am I affiliated with any of it. I have not removed that content because they appear cited as examples, rather than as vendor promotion, although some of it ranges close to promotion.

Since 2007, I have added or edited content to the following sections of the multifactor authentication page (I added or edited almost all of the content on the security token page):

1 Background 1.1 Regulatory definition 2 Knowledge factors: "something the user knows" 3 Possession factors: "something the user has" 3.2 Connected tokens 3.2.1 USB tokens 3.2.2 Smartcards 3.2.8 Virtual tokens 3.2.9 Soft tokens 3.4 Mobile phones 3.4.1 Vulnerability to attacking 3.4.2 Assignment to the bearer 3.4.3 SMS one time password 3.4.5 Additional phone token 6 Cost effectiveness 7 Market acceptance 8 Guidance 9 Regulatory requirements 10 Product proliferation 12 Man-in-the-middle attacks 13 Market segments

Note about this issue: Recently, another editor has been attempting to censor pertinent information from these two articles. I have no idea why they have focused on the specific sections they have focused on ("regulatory definition", "virtual tokens", "Vulnerability to attacking", and "man-in-the-middle-attacks"). To try and accommodate their repeated edits, I removed all vendor names and links from the affected sections, I added relevant source links, and have asked them to explain their concerns. They refuse to communicate with me, and have simply reverted to their censored content. MesaBoy77 (talk) 16:03 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit-warring and socking, as you did at Multi-factor authentication. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MesaBoy77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not engage in edit warring. In fact, I voluntarily self-reverted my earlier post from the above page and was engaged in an active discussion with the other editor who objected to the page content. Your block is unwarranted and it prohibits me from continuing to discuss this with the other editors. MesaBoy77 (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I accept the explanation at AN/I. Any further request must address this in detail. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You should read my comments at WP:ANI for a fuller explanation of this block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]