Re: Self-determination of language versions in questions of skin?

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Strainu <strainu10 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> (I'd argue that changing the skin to vector is a strategic decision by
>> WMF and cannot be overruled by local communities - but that's something
>> a system administrator has to decide.)
>>
>
> I'd say the system administrators will do as the foundation (board
> perhaps? or some other organ) says.

I have taken the question to foundation-l now because I don't want to
risk that we run a poll and then at the end the Foundation will veto
against the change.

Martin

Fwd: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Henri Salo <henri <at> nerv.fi>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:36:40 +0300
Subject: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others
To: full-disclosure <at> lists.grok.org.uk, mark <at> wikimedia.org

Original email attached. Analysis of the malisious URL:

http://wepawet.iseclab.org/view.php?hash=ea568f176830f3151538ce46a1182be9&t=1277983472&type=js

Best regards,
Henri Salo

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: Fwd: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Christopher Grant
<chrisgrantmail <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Henri Salo <henri <at> nerv.fi>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:36:40 +0300
> Subject: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others
> To: full-disclosure <at> lists.grok.org.uk, mark <at> wikimedia.org

And another person who doesn't understand that the From address isn't
authoritative.

Re: Fwd: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others

On 1 July 2010 21:58, OQ <overlordq <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Christopher Grant
> <chrisgrantmail <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Henri Salo <henri <at> nerv.fi>
>> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:36:40 +0300
>> Subject: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others
>> To: full-disclosure <at> lists.grok.org.uk, mark <at> wikimedia.org
>
> And another person who doesn't understand that the From address isn't
> authoritative.

Is a obscure point.  To know it you have to learn SMTP, probably
reading the RFC.

>>>>>>>>>>>
 When RFC 822 format [7, 32] is being used, the mail data include the
   memo header items such as Date, Subject, To, Cc, From.  Server SMTP
   systems SHOULD NOT reject messages based on perceived defects in the
   RFC 822 or MIME [12] message header or message body."
<<<<<<<<<<<

You seems a informed person. We have to ignore this message? It looks
somewhat odd and out of context (mostly because the sender never added
context).    I can see how, if Wikipedia host pdf files, some of these
can act as vector for malware.  If wikipedia serve the files
unmodified, I can see how is possible to write a "renderer to memory"
that rebuild the whole file, withouth any scripting. But such thing
may take lots of hours of programmers, and mediawiki seems very
limited by that factor  (and not epicness, there are lots of epics

Re: Fwd: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others

Well there's not much we really can do (apart from having the malware site
taken down, but then they'll just start using another one). I just thought
it was an interesting attack vector, trying to abuse people's trust of
Wikipedia (I wonder how many people would actually click the cancel link
instead of just letting it automatically expire like the email says it
would).

-- Chris

Re: Fwd: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others

On 7/2/2010 3:46 AM, Tei wrote:
> On 1 July 2010 21:58, OQ <overlordq <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Christopher Grant
>> <chrisgrantmail <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Henri Salo <henri <at> nerv.fi>
>>> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:36:40 +0300
>>> Subject: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others
>>> To: full-disclosure <at> lists.grok.org.uk, mark <at> wikimedia.org
>>
>> And another person who doesn't understand that the From address isn't
>> authoritative.
> 
> Is a obscure point.  To know it you have to learn SMTP, probably
> reading the RFC.
> 

Well I take my statement back, he posted a followup in which he knows it
didn't come from wikipedia, but still chose to say "using Wikipedia to
infect others" instead of "using Wikipedia's name to infect others"

Re: Fwd: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others

On 2 July 2010 11:13, Q <overlordq <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2010 3:46 AM, Tei wrote:
>> On 1 July 2010 21:58, OQ <overlordq <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Christopher Grant
>>> <chrisgrantmail <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Henri Salo <henri <at> nerv.fi>
>>>> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:36:40 +0300
>>>> Subject: [Full-disclosure] Someone using Wikipedia to infect others
>>>> To: full-disclosure <at> lists.grok.org.uk, mark <at> wikimedia.org
>>>
>>> And another person who doesn't understand that the From address isn't
>>> authoritative.
>>
>> Is a obscure point.  To know it you have to learn SMTP, probably
>> reading the RFC.
>>
>
> Well I take my statement back, he posted a followup in which he knows it
> didn't come from wikipedia, but still chose to say "using Wikipedia to
> infect others" instead of "using Wikipedia's name to infect others"
>

Somwhat unrelated:

Google has this service to see PDF's online.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://noscope.com/photostream/albums/various/no.pdf

Since it run on the browser, is safer than running any adobe monocultiveware.

Re: LaTeX algorithmic package support for pretty algorithm pseudo-code?

Okay, I've played around a bit with my wiki and unicode.  It is indeed
the best option.  Resized text looks nice, and for my purposes this
works quite well.  Inserting the unicode text is a bit of a pain,
since right now I am copying and pasting the text... but I recently
found that there are entity definitions, like ∉ which make this
much easier to edit.

The only thing to do now, is to check how indentation is going to
work, along with line numbering.  I'll play with it a bit more, and I
will see about sharing an example of a typeset algorithm here.

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Ilmari Karonen <nospam <at> vyznev.net> wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 09:32 PM, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
>> On 06/30/2010 06:14 AM, Adrien Guillon wrote:
>>> I've perused wikipedia a
>>> bit, and I really don't like how algorithms look there.  The appeal of
>>> the use of LaTeX, is mostly for the use of boolean algebra and set
>>> theory symbols.... although sometimes other symbols like floor or
>>> ceiling would be highly useful.
>>
>> Unicode does have those; see
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_mathematical_operators_and_symbols
>
> Actually, the floor and ceiling symbols appear to be in the
> "miscellaneous technical" block:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscellaneous_Technical_(Unicode)
>
> --
> Ilmari Karonen

Did we break page protection permissions on enwiki?

Regarding:
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pedophilia&action=history

How is it that user Kotniski ‎(autopatrolled, reviewer, rollbacker)
can currently edit a page which is full protected at the moment:

(del/undel) 20:52, 29 June 2010 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs
| block) changed protection level of Wikipedia:Pedophilia [edit=sysop]
(expires 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 09:42, 2 July
2010 (UTC))

Am I missing something, or did the protection permissions get borken
at some point?

--

-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert <at> gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Re: Did we break page protection permissions on enwiki?

On 7/2/2010 1:59 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> Regarding:
>    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pedophilia&action=history
>
> How is it that user Kotniski ‎(autopatrolled, reviewer, rollbacker)
> can currently edit a page which is full protected at the moment:
>
> (del/undel) 20:52, 29 June 2010 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs
> | block) changed protection level of Wikipedia:Pedophilia [edit=sysop]
> (expires 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 09:42, 2 July
> 2010 (UTC))
>
> Am I missing something, or did the protection permissions get borken
> at some point?
>
>
>    

If you were to read the log, you'd notice that the full protection 
expired 09:42, 2 July 2010. Kotniski's first edit to that page today was 
10:10, 2 July 2010, which is after the protection expired.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l