User talk:Emacsuser

Welcome (Back) to Wikipedia. Here is some general information you may find useful: click here


 * Be Bold with your edits but also be moderate, check out the policy on NPOV, or neutral point of view and remember to cite your sources. Proper Wikiquette suggests it is a good idea to make a suggestion first on the discussion page of a controversial article before making substantial edits, if you wish to avoid an edit war.  We do not own the material we contribute, so be prepared to have your entries edited mercilessly&mdash; the thought "but it's my article" should never cross your mind.


 * You can find help with editing at How to edit a page including how to do special characters and formatting, and the Manual of Style is also strongly recommended. Specific questions can be asked at Newcomers help page.


 * When most of us start working on Wikipedia or its sister projects we think of them mainly as information resources, but Wikipedia is also an international community. It is a way for us to share and collaborate as we work towards the elusive goal of consensus. Check out the Community portal at the left of any page to find many opportunities to work together.

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.

Columbia Data Products
Welcome back. Glad to help out. --Blainster 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

MedCab case
Hi. 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)

Advocacy Case RE: Windows article
As I posted in the Discussion section of this case:
 * This is a little sparse and for someone that hasn't been tracking this activity a lot, it's hard to follow or figure out what is going on. If this is just a simple manner of getting a statement cited, there should be a tag on it to request one, unless there was one and it has been repeatedly removed. In any case, there really needs to be more information to go on, otherwise it's going to take a long time for someone to dig into this. Thanks. -Cquan 23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Palfrey rewrite
I addressed your concern at Talk:Deborah Jeane Palfrey under the section "General discussion". I'd appreciate your feedback. &#8756; Therefore | talk 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger Took
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. - P ilotguy  contact tower  15:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the non-free content criteria, there must be no free equivalent if the image is being used under fair use. As Took is alive, a free equivalent would be possible, so the image is disqualified from the fair-use rationale. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's become acedemic as the whole article has dissapeared ..


 * and my account is permanently disabled ...

emacsuser (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Images
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)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Internet Server internet.server.png
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), (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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see 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)

Re: Malware and Methods of Infection
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, and two more later. 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)

Only warning
Your edit-warring on Michael Robertson (businessman) is completely unacceptable, for at least two reasons:
 * 1) You are re-adding material that is in direct violation of our policy on biographies of living persons, a policy which is completely non-negotiable. I note that you have been blocked for this before, so you know better.
 * 2) The source for all of that material is a blog, which as you well know is also not acceptable, and very specifically not acceptable for negative, defamatory, or potentially libelous statements about a living person.

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)


 * Message received, I was merely about restoring the article to its origial state after repeated violations by Leslieaudra *and* after it was reported on WP:BLPN. My actions were in direct response to (and the lack of response by Wikipedia) the following *libelous* *comments*.


 * In 2005, Robertson stepped down as CEO in favor of Kevin Carmony who in turn stole several hundred thousand dollars from the company..


 * In 2005, Robertson stepped down as CEO in favor of Kevin Carmony. Carmony left Linspire and continues today to slander Robertson on his personal site. Eventually, it was learned that several hundred thousand dollars was taken from the company and Linspire could not recover from the loss and had to be sold. Unfortunately, the case is still ongoing and statements made under oath by certain former employees can not be posted at this time. They will be posted in their entirety at the appropriate time, Leslieaudra


 * As far as it being a blog, I would point out to you that the author of the said blog is the subject of the said comments.

---

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

File source problem with File:Internet Server internet.server.png
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 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)

Re: not a high quality link
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)


 * You still haven't told us what's 'low quality' about the link. It most certainly does add to the article in relation to Palfreys state of mind. I find your particular response most curious. If you have any evidence of SOCKing then do take it up with the relevant Wikipedian authorities.


 * Please read the relevant policy on external links. And the socking comment arose from the fact you have been arguing, off and on, for a while for the inclusion of this information when a brand new account makes its 1st (and only) post in support of something you have been trying to include.  It is at least amusingly suspicious.  Anyway, I will not discuss this further with you, outside of the talk page of the article.  Ip208man (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_personal_attacks emacsuser (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

October 2010
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 &#124; contribs) 13:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP enforcement
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)


 * There appear to be primary sources such as court filings, and the accuser's own blog posts. Nothing at all we could use as a reliable source for such allegations. It's hard to tell who's behind all this: the accuser, the CoS, or both. Jehochman Talk 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

sneak the tabloid junk back into the article
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)