14:2314:23, 1 May 2016diffhist+1,382
Multi-factor authentication
robotic reversion un-done (it reached an incorrect conclusion - all references were added at request of other editors to back up the original change) Undid revision 718095801 by McGeddon (talk)
13:0813:08, 1 May 2016diffhist+187
Multi-factor authentication
Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write ... Bruce is both.
13:0513:05, 1 May 2016diffhist+187
Multi-factor authentication
Visit your talk page to mediate this instead of warring please. If you do not know Bruce, you should not be editing this page in the first place. Here's 260+ wiki other articles accepting him as reliable: site:https://en.wikipedia.org/ "Schneier, Bruce"
02:1802:18, 1 May 2016diffhist+187
Multi-factor authentication
Industries most widely accepted expert in this field is the most reliable source possible. Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier or his dozen+ books. Do not revert without again without citation to back up your opinion.
11:2211:22, 30 April 2016diffhist−187
Multi-factor authentication
someone has programmed multiple robots to instantly revert edits to this page using human-sounding excuses, however, these excuses do not stand up to scrutiny. Request those robots be investigated, along with motives of owners.
11:1811:18, 30 April 2016diffhist+187
Multi-factor authentication
user offered their opinion, without any references as justification, for removing the reference to this industries most widely respected expert in this matter. multi-factor is not stopping breakins - pick up any IT newspaper.