Reword the recent deobfuscation changes

In most cases the word was changed to 'obfuscation' as it was about
obfuscation, not deobfuscation. In some cases like 1995/leo since the
file was (in 1995/leo) about a secret switch it was changed to
'secret.md' (and 'secret.html') but there were others like that as well.

One entry had the words 'spoiling the size rule' but this had been
changed to 'deobfuscating the size rule' which was obviously wrong.

In the latter YYYY/README.md files the judges had written after some
entries (brief summaries) '...

    ...We'll stop spouting spoilers now. Have fun exploring all the
    entries!

but that was changed to:

    ...We'll stop spouting deobfuscation information now. Have fun
    exploring all the entries!

which wasn't really about deobfuscation but just a brief summary of what
the entries did.

And in the most problematic case (at least for me :-), 2018/ferguson) I
had put a joke in:

    ... but it's the only Easter egg I won't spoil

but it was changed to 'won't deobfuscate' which not only is not what it
is but it spoilt the joke.

In some cases the word was changed back to 'SPOILER' (or similar) but in
most cases not. I believe it should be better now. There are some
caveats, however, as below.

Although make find_missing_links is okay I do not remember if this will
catch links that refer to '%%REPO_URL%%' or other pandoc tokens. This
means I might have to go back to some earlier years to verify links are
okay. That should not take that much time I hope.

It might also be that some wording can still be improved some but it is
hoped this will be discovered when checking links and looking over the
manifest (which obviously changed).

2000/primenum/README.md

@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ NOTE: `n` is an integer.
 
 ## Judges' remarks:
 
-Don't read the author remarks until you're ready for some obfuscation information.
+Don't read the author's remarks until you're ready for the spoiler.
 Just stop and read the program; it won't take long.  Once you've figured
 out what it does, run it.  It may surprise you.
 
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ running the program a second time.  Try:
     diff textfile textfile2
 ```
 
-where n is the same number (modulo 64).  So, the prime number generator
+where `n` is the same number (modulo 64).  So, the prime number generator
 is actually a simple text encoder/decoder!  Of course, don't forget that
 argument, otherwise the "bugs" in the program will cause it to crash!
 

2000/primenum/index.html

@@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ Location: <a href="../../location.html#US">US</a> - <em>United States of America
 <h2 id="try">Try:</h2>
 <pre><code>    ./try.sh</code></pre>
 <h2 id="judges-remarks">Judges’ remarks:</h2>
-<p>Don’t read the author remarks until you’re ready for some obfuscation information.
+<p>Don’t read the author’s remarks until you’re ready for the spoiler.
 Just stop and read the program; it won’t take long. Once you’ve figured
 out what it does, run it. It may surprise you.</p>
 <p>This entry won, not because the obfuscation is impenetrable, but because
@@ -437,7 +437,7 @@ Instead, the program reads input from <code>stdin</code> and returns garbled tex
 running the program a second time. Try:</p>
 <pre><code>    ./primenum n &lt; textfile | ./primenum n &gt; textfile2
     diff textfile textfile2</code></pre>
-<p>where n is the same number (modulo 64). So, the prime number generator
+<p>where <code>n</code> is the same number (modulo 64). So, the prime number generator
 is actually a simple text encoder/decoder! Of course, don’t forget that
 argument, otherwise the “bugs” in the program will cause it to crash!</p>
 <h3 id="features">Features</h3>