User talk:JimKillock

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome JimKillock! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:52, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Eleanor of Castile

Hi JimKillock, I've now completed my c/e; I removed quite a lot of what seems to be unnecessary commentary from the article; see my edit summaries for details. I've added a [clarification needed] tag in the final paragraph of "Historical reputation" – "in recent decades" is ambiguous and needs context. I think "Death of Eleanor" --> "Procession, burial and monuments" could be rearranged to separate the subjects; the journey to London, the burials and the monuments. That's just my subjective view though. Anyway, good luck with this interesting and informative article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Would Cookie stuffing get through FAC

Do you think Cookie stuffing pass WP:FAC? If not, what are the areas I should work on for it get through FAC? I wanted to tackle a more limited topic in the security/privacy category before coming back to vastness of Cross-site leaks. sohom@enwiki 05:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sohom Datta, this is a much simpler topic for average users to understand. At a glance, (1) the lead is expected to summarise the overall topic and work as its own overview. This should cover all the main points. What are the "dubious techniques" is not covered, for example. Mention of the use of pop ups, for example, would help explain this. (2) In the techniques section, I didn't understand quite how redirects would trick browsers into thinking the cookie was set by a different domain. (3) Generally checking for comprehension of tricky concepts is a good idea.

FWIW I didn't think Cross-site leaks was far off regarding comprehensibility, but it seemed like the suggestions I'd come up with to resolve the need for easy access to comprehendable content for the for average users didn't feel right to you. This is something of a weakness in the WP approach; one can suggest but it is up to the active editors (in this case you!) what to do. When you come back to the article, I think you just need to decide how you want to tackle comprehension for an average user, and then I and others can help you with your chosen approach. Jim Killock (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to address a few of the points you raised. Most of the rest of the article seems fairly easy to read except maybe the 3rd paragraph of Techniques. (does it need some expanding? or is the current prose okay?)

Wrt to Cross-site leaks, what killed the project (for now) was not issues surrounding the comprehensibility, but rather the fact that I did not feel that the prose was accurate enough for a FA due to developments over the last few months (there has been at least two new research papers detailing newer attack pattern and a slew of security improvements from browsers (like the third-party cookie deprecation initiative) that should make cross-site leaks significantly harder to execute. Sohom (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)