Talk:Sporgery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Internet culture WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Internet related culture. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
[edit] Supersedes
I always thought sporgery involved use of the supersedes header to overwrite actual messages, replacing them with new content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.241.137 (talk • contribs).
- No, the sporgeries didn't have a supersedes header. But they used the same username and subject lines than real messages - to confuse. Due to certain flaws in the message headers, it was possible to cancel them with software that would detect them. --Tilman 19:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Supersedes was used now and then (December 1997, etc) during various phases of disruption for cancelling. I forget right now if supersedes was ever combined with the sporgery, but it would have stuck out like a sore thumb. One reason for the flaws in the headers was (probably) so that the software would recognize and not sporge its own articles, although I think it did do that sometimes. AndroidCat 04:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
