User talk:Remember the dot

Archives

2006
2007 Jan - Mar

User Account Control

Please stop adding what amounts a statement of than your personal opinion into this article. You know full well that such material is not welcome on Wikipedia, and I really shouldn't have to take the time to provide you with a link to Wikipedia:Attribution to make this clear. Continued efforts along this line will continue to be reverted, which wastes my time and yours. Provide reliable sources, or stop. Thanks. -/- Warren 05:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my personal opinion that Ubuntu and Mac OS X offer a similar feature. What part of this do you want a reference for? —Remember the dot (t) 17:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to hold your hand through Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but the short of it is this: Any statements which express a view or opinion must be attributable to a reliable source. It says this right in our content policies -- it's not up for discussion. -/- Warren 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of the policies. I'm asking what part of my contributions you are challenging. Are you challenging that Ubuntu and Mac OS X offer features similar to UAC? Are you challenging that the features are indeed similar to UAC? Are you challenging that sudo was around before UAC? —Remember the dot (t) 20:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Qxz-ad5.gif

Hi. I noticed you tagged this as "should be PNG", and indeed someone's gone and made a PNG of it. There is in fact a reason why I've uploaded it as a GIF – as you can probably guess from the name, it's part of a series (6 in total), some of which are animated and some of which aren't. I've designed a template to display one of them at random on my talk page – and writing such a template is a lot easier if the images are all identically named except for the number. So since some of them had to be GIFs, I used GIF for all of them. If you would prefer that I used PNG for all non-animated images, I can rewrite the template, though file size and image quality don't seem to be a concern. Thanks – Qxz 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would much prefer that you set a good example by using the PNG and SVG formats instead of the GIF format. But seeing as it's for your personal talk page, it's not something I'm going to get too upset about. —Remember the dot (t) 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice UK

Hello, Remember the dot and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MultiTorg Opera.png

Thanks for uploading Image:MultiTorg Opera.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. KonstableSock 11:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

I replied on my talk page. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"XML"

Hi,

I notice on your user page you write:

Use valid XHTML - " " should be " "

You are mistaken; this is irrelevant. We are not editing HTML or XHTML here, we are editing wiki mark-up. In wiki mark-up, " " is just as valid, if not even more valid (because wiki mark-up is supposed to be short and simple), and the parser turns it into perfectly well-formed XHTML when outputting the rendered page. — Timwi 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the MediaWiki software transforms it into valid XHTML on the way out, but there are advantages to using valid XHTML in the source of pages as well. You see, because valid XHTML is very consistent, it is less confusing and easier to learn than HTML. Just as wiki markup is simpler than XHTML, XHTML is simpler than HTML. Thus, in order to help new users quickly get the hang of editing pages, it's generally best to use wiki markup when possible, and fall back on XHTML when use of wiki markup is not possible. That way, new users would not see inconsistent, confusing HTML and be discouraged from editing Wikipedia, thinking that learning such an inconsistent and confusing syntax is just too hard. —Remember the dot (t) 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken again. is much easier and simpler than for everyone but computer geeks (and computer science students perhaps). Furthermore, a cryptic code like is already confusing and discouraging to everyone but computer geeks. Your compaign is kind of pointless :-) — Timwi 09:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between and is one character. To a nontechnical person, they're both equally difficult. The advantage to is that it represents a consistent syntax, which is overall easier to learn. Those that learn a little XHTML by example at Wikipedia can take that knowledge and use it to help them learn XHTML or XML. So, using valid XHTML teaches aspiring web designers good skills by example. And again, because it is more consistent, it can help newbies understand the usage of and differences between the various tags more quickly and easily. —Remember the dot (t) 07:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously not going to change your opinion, so I'll stop discussing this with you. But I am disappointed to see that this attitude that Wikipedia editors should be "aspiring web designers" or anything of the sort is still around. :( — Timwi 09:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that Wikipedia editors should be web designers. I'm saying that those interested in understanding the small amount of (X)HTML we use inside pages will have an easier time of it if we use valid XHTML. —Remember the dot (t) 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea

And I think you might like this one... we could collaborate on making an article that compares and contrasts the privilege escalation mechanisms in Windows and Unix. There are some really interesting things that can be said in this context, like calling out the difference between su, sudo, runas, and UAC, and there's a lot of good, detailed documentation we can draw on. Readers could draw their own conclusions about what approach is "better", and then the articles on UAC, sudo, etc. can all link to that. If we stick with the factual details, we can avoid the issue of trying to answer questions like "who came first?" or "who's better?".... What do you think? -/- Warren 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. How about if we call it Comparison of privilege escalation features? That's a mouthful, but I can't think of anything shorter. Also, though it is a good idea to create this article and link to it on User Account Control, sudo and su (Unix), sudo still deserves a brief mention in User Account Control. In the sufficiently brief "Similarity to other operating systems" section, the first line could be "Main article: Comparison of privilege escalation features". Similar sections could be added to sudo and su (Unix) if you'd like. —Remember the dot (t) 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've been thinking about names... I was looking at privilege escalation and doing some looking in to how the term is used. It's definitely a lot more common in the "security exploit" field than it is in the "legitimite" sense, which is making me second-guess the use of that specific term. Microsoft uses the word "elevation", and I'm seeing the word "elevated" being used in conjunction with setuid. But "Privilege elevation" sounds pretty rough, too, doesn't it?

Hmmm.... What if we went with something more basic like Elevation (computer security)? It'd fit nicely into Category:Operating system security since we don't appear to have a decent article which discusses the concept. -/- Warren 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation (computer security) still sounds kind of ambiguous to me. Also, since there doesn't seem to be a universal term to group UAC, sudo, and the like, we should probably stick with a title that starts with "Comparison of". That would make it clear that it is a comparison of the various programs, and not just a discussion of the general concept. In short, since the concept doesn't really have a name as of yet, we should say "Comparison of..." to avoid making the article title imply that the concept has a name.

So, how about Comparison of action authorization features? It has a nice ring to it :D —Remember the dot (t) 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good point indeed. Who'd have thought that such a ubiquitous concept wouldn't have an agreed-upon term? Oh well. Authorization is a good word, though... what if we combined it with privilege, e.g. Comparison of privilege authorization features? -/- Warren 06:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I like the word "action" rather than "privilege". To me, sudo and UAC let the user authorize actions. The actions could be modifying privileges, modifying the contents of protected system folders, etc. "privilege" implies giving or removing permissions, whereas the UAC/sudo/su/runas concept applies to authorizing a wide variety of possible administrator actions. I suppose what's going on under the hood is that the user gives programs privileges to do certain things, but the average user probably just thinks of it as confirming or denying an action. —Remember the dot (t) 06:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, I think "action authorization" gets the idea across clearly and concisely, and "privilege authorization" is a more technical way of looking at it. I'd like people to be able to see the title and instantly remember what concept it refers to, no matter what their level of technical experience is. —Remember the dot (t) 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've thought about it some more and concluded that it can be looked at both ways. For example "privilege authorization" more accurately describes the "Run as administrator" command than "action authorization" does. So Comparison of privilege authorization features would be fine. —Remember the dot (t) 07:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a newcomer, I would like to suggest Single-process privilege elevation. In all cases, whether it's an "action" or a "privilege", the granting of such privileges is done to a process. The term "process" has a consistent meaning throughout both Windows and Unix and in the computing concept of multitasking in general. Even if you're authorizing a single "action", in all cases you are granting privileges to a process (that may discard those privileges or terminate itself after the "action" is completed). Such a term is also consistent with su, sudo, runas, and other manifestations of the same thing. I strongly prefer "elevation" over "escalation", as "escalation" has a connotation of being forced, that isn't applicable to su or runas. Reswobslc 00:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the Comparison of privilege authorization features article started. I welcome your input on how to improve it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Afghanistan.jpg

You inappropriately tagged and removed this emblem from its proper article. Please don't make judgements on Scouting articles. It's not in a template, it violates no use rules, and it follows the Scouting WikiProject MoS. Chris 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, thank you for your hard work in PNG conversion! :) Chris 01:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How this image is currently used on Afghan Scout Association fails fair use criteria number 8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." If you want to include this image in the article, display it as a thumbnail and write an appropriate caption for it. Displaying a tiny 20px wide copy of it next to the text is not a good idea. —Remember the dot (t) 06:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image on WP:PUI

Hi, an image you uploaded, Image:Canadian Number 7 cigarette package scan.png is on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, already for a while. I don't think anyone informed you about that. Garion96 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Brock_in_original_Pokémon_series.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Brock_in_original_Pokémon_series.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need sources for the following:

[1] - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow tipping

Thanks so much for your comment! My understanding of the guideline was that the reason for caution in changing ones comments is that "Other users may already have quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise reacted to your statement." Was there another user who did this in Talk:Cow tipping? Thanks so much, --Shirahadasha 22:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying to your message on my talk page) Perhaps you might want to propose editing the guideline to reflect these additional considerations. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the Wikipedia:Talk Page guideline was recently changed to relax a prior prohibition on editing talk and permit changes in certain circumstances. See the discussion about this change in the guideline in Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Removing or changing one's own comments. I agree with this relaxation and believe my edit was consistent with it. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to register your view and discuss reverting the guideline back to its previous stance, which had been complete prohibition. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Samus's_cameo_in_Galactic_Pinball_screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Samus's_cameo_in_Galactic_Pinball_screenshot.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT stated. At what point does it either state what web site it came from or who took the screenshot? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images need a source. It does NOT matter that the taker doesn't own it, we NEED to know where it came from. That is not optional. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses

Thanks for the tips! I look forward to testing my new knowledge!--Vbd (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Samus_Aran_Super_Metroid_screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Samus_Aran_Super_Metroid_screenshot.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for a third opinion

Hi! I try to help out with 3O and saw your request on the page:
Image:Samus's cameo in Galactic Pinball screenshot.png: Disagreement over whether stating what video game this is from is adequate source information, or whether the person that took the screenshot is also needed. 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed it because I can't see who the dispute is between. Perhaps you should try listing this request at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions or place a link to the place where the discussion is going on. Thanks.
Seraphim Whipp 13:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky 6.9

User:Lucky 6.9 is, or was, an administrator who resigned. There isn't much use in warning him. If he's on Wikipedia, he's on under a different name not known to the public, and likely not as an administrator. Reswobslc 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, warnings for something done two months ago are not really useful, especially since they have not edited since then. Warnings should be more for current things rather than for past happenings CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the info. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towel day05 oren.jpg

File:Towel day05 oren.jpg

hi, i uploaded this image from hebrew wikipedia. it is GFDL there, can u remove the tag? GOER 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]