Welcome (Back) to Wikipedia. Here is some general information you may find useful: click here
You should place new entries on Talk (discussion) pages at the bottom, and sign with four tildes like this:~~~~ (there is also a sig button at the top of the edit window), and you can indent your entry in a discussion thread by putting a colon (:) or several (:::) as needed in the left-hand margin. If you put a space as the first character on a line, that line will remain unformatted (not recommended).
Happy Editing.
Welcome back. Glad to help out. --Blainster 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Emacsuser. I'm currently mediating a case into which you're involved.
Please take a look of the case here.
For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments, including yours, of course ;-).
So, please voice your opinion on the case's page.
I'm at your disposal for every question.
Happy editing,
Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 18:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
As I posted in the Discussion section of this case:
I addressed your concern at Talk:Deborah Jeane Palfrey#Discussion of points of disagreement under the section "General discussion". I'd appreciate your feedback. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Roger Took. Thank you. -Pilotguy contact tower 15:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
emacsuser (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The point is, it's considered better - from a legal standpoint - to have a Free image rather than a Fair Use image. As long as a person is alive, free photographs can still be taken of them. DS (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Internet Server internet.server.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like ((PD-self)) (to release all rights), ((self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL))
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. With respect of your additions to Comparison of Windows and Linux and your question on my talk page:
To take your additions in order: you first state that "Under Windows, it's click and run feature is the cause of the vast majority of 'infections'. Under a properly configured Linux system, the user has to perform a number of explicid actions to get 'infected'." This is not correct: since XP SP2, under both systems one action must be performed to a binary or script downloaded from the internet before executing is allowed: in Linux it must be made executable, in Windows it must be marked as safe. In any case, to assert that the minor differences between these two approaches is "the cause of the vast majority of infections" is a frankly unbelievable statement that would need a very strong source; needless to say you give none. The way you finish that paragraph, however, easily trumps this: "...As such any potential damage is confined to the users home directory". This is complete nonsense: file permissions have nothing to do with how easy it is to make something executable. Well, not quite nothing: in Linux they are at least both types of permissions; but in Windows they are completely unrelated -- the former is accomplished through ACLs, the latter through alternate data streams. In neither case is the former a result of the latter.
However, all this is to some extent irrelevent: no matter how it is accomplished, damage is certainly confined to the users home directory in most Linux distros and the latest versions of Windows. Which, being the same in Windows and Linux, makes a rather poor argument in favour of one or the other.
You then -- despite denying that you'd done so ("I assert no such think") state that "given the nature of Windows, the way Internet Explorer is embedded into the OS ... a malicious program can gain admin access merely by the user clicking on a malicious URL...". Though initially uncited, you did add four citations when you reposted it ([1][2][3][4]), and two more later ([5][6]). The first four I can only guess that you got these from a quick Google of historic Windows security vulnerabilities, since none apply to XP SP2, let alone Vista; and so are hardly a valid source for a statement that a program "can gain admin access (present tense) merely by the user clicking on a malicious URL". Amusingly, you tried to back your point about Internet Explorer in your post on my talk page by quoting the Animated Cursor vulnerability (CVE-2007-0038) -- which, on Vista, is considerably more exploitable in Firefox than IE7! (Attacks on IE7 are mitigated by the protected mode permissions sandbox).
But anyway, all this is again partially irrelevent. No doubt if you looked properly you would have little trouble finding relevent Windows vulnerabilities. If you looked properly you would also have little trouble finding vulnerabilities in Linux as well (ever browsed the LWN weekly security disclosure section?) and, indeed, any other major operating system. The interesting point in comparing the two OSes is how much damage an exploit can cause, which is governed by factors such as the permissions models; and you would certainly by justified in comparing those (if the comparison page did not have an extensive discussion already, which it does). However, your comparison of these was largely nonsense and completely uncited -- see first paragraph -- and so I consider that I was entirely justified in reverting you.
Thanks, and please feel free to reply if you have any further questions. -- simxp (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Your edit-warring on Michael Robertson (businessman) is completely unacceptable, for at least two reasons:
I have added the article to my watchlist and shall seek admin intervention should you re-add this material. //roux 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Robertson_(businessman)&oldid=281674608
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Problematic_text_at_Michael_Robertson_.28businessman.29
Thanks for uploading File:Internet Server internet.server.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a low quality external link that did not add anything to the article. Therefore, it is not needed. It is up to you to convince the other editors of the page as to why changes should be made (on the talk page) instead of asking us to explain why your unwarranted change was deleted. Also, I found it highly entertaining that you took it upon yourself to be involved in this, since it was an editor with 0 other posts who included the link. I surely hope this is not a case of SOCKing that needs to be addressed. And for the sake of the article, please stay away from it if all you have is conspiracy theories. Ip208man (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_personal_attacks emacsuser (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:A Complete History of My Sexual Failures are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Your edits to Talk:Keith Henson were removed. Per WP:BLP do not add potentially libelous information to Wikipedia on any page. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I take it then that there isn't any verifiable reference for those allegations. emacsuser (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I've lost count of the times you have tried to sneak that tabloid allegation about the victim into the lead or other parts of the article; do not do it again. It is a BLP violation, especially in the lead. Errant (chat!) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The `unreferenced controversial biographical content' you refer is a) a reported conversation with chief assistant district attorney Daniel R. Alonso and b) a refutation of allegations by the NYT regarding the victim. The source being the San Francisco Chronicle, which according to Wikipedia `has received the Pulitzer Prize on a number of occasions'. Now please do produce any verifiable evidence that the content is a) defamatory and b) the San Francisco Chronicle is a tabloid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Chronicle emacsuser (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)