User talk:Codename Lisa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Codename_Lisa.

Crystal Clear app gadu.png Welcome, Codename Lisa!

Hello, Codename Lisa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png   The five pillars of Wikipedia
Crystal package utilities.png   How to edit a page
Crystal khelpcenter.png   Help pages
Crystal Clear app ktip.png   Tutorial
Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png   How to write a great article
Crystal Clear app kedit.png   Manual of Style
Nuvola apps konquest.png   Fun stuff...
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Mr. Stradivarius 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Inori Aizawa, Transformers, etc.[edit]

Claiming that a request for clarification of what you meant by an insinuation of "self-promotion" is trolling or a personal attack, as you did here, is absolutely beyond the pale. If you do that again, we're heading to the noticeboards. --erachima talk 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First personal attack, then allegation of vandalism and now threatening me? Not cool.
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither the original comment or its removal was a personal attack. The threat for the noticeboard is silly. Lisa asking for clarification is not an accusation. Erachima I don't think your comment should have been removed, rather it should have been answered. But to suggest it is something worthy of a noticeboard is not reasonable.
Instead of noticeboards and templates use your words. Chillum 15:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Attempting to delete non-policy-violating questions from other editors on a public discussion forum is an immediate and complete breakdown in the normal resolution of disputes via discussion, not to mention being a simultaneous violation of pretty much every civility rule we've got. The only things which deserve quicker escalation are legal threats and doxing. I thank you for your swift intervention, however, and hope the matter is settled. --erachima talk 16:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPA is a founding policy. When I believe something is a personal attack, it entails that I believe it is a policy violation too. Even if I didn't, such treatment of the subject is ex post facto. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Chillum: Very well, if you say so. Perhaps if Erachima's comment was a denial of attempting a personal attack instead of accusation of vandalism, I was less inclined to think of him as battlefield-minded. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Are we both talking about this[1] edit? All I see is a request for clarification and substantiation of a statement. Where does vandalism come into it?
Is there somewhere where there is indication that the author has a conflict of interest? Did you say self-promotion when you meant appears promotional? It is a subtle distinction but the former does imply something about the author, the later does not. It appears that is what Erachima was concerned about[2], a clarification on terms.
The warning given to you was out of line, a friendlier message seeking to clarify things would have been more appropriate. Regarding your edit summary, I don't see trolling or personal attacks in what you removed. I don't think it is a failure to AGF to ask what someone meant, though "If not, I'd highly suggest..." does imply he thinks that what you meant.
It is still not clear to me if you think the author was affiliated with the subject and self-promoting or if you think it was just a person writing something in a promotional tone?
Often instances of trolling are only apparent when a pattern is demonstrated and a single incidence of the pattern looks harmless. If there is context that I am missing that puts this in a different light then I apologize for my misunderstanding. Chillum 16:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Chillum: Hello again. I conceded my view of what erachima's message means over yours when I self-reverted. Hence, you understand, we are discussing a changed opinion now. I think such a message is very offensive, even if it is written in good faith; Basic etiquette mandates that he put his concern in at least some trepidation.
An article that promotes a subject – or ends up doing so in good faith – is promotional. A promotional article about a promotional device is "self-promotional" unless it advertises a controversy about the promotional subject.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I think this all comes down to a confusion in terms. The dictionary defines self-promotion as the action of promoting or publicizing oneself. The author of the article Sky6t had been a contributing member for over a year before authoring the article. The author has been contributing to a variety of subjects since 2011.

A promotional article about a promotional device is "self-promotional" is not a definition that seems to be in any dictionary or commonly used. I see that you did not mean to imply that the author was promoting themselves. I think perhaps you could see why Erachima thought that was what you were saying? Chillum 16:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You would be right but only if you forget that Inori Aizawa is a moe anthropomorphic fictional figure; its existence is the very material about her. So, yes, she can self-promote herself. (i.e. she can promote Internet Explorer.)
But if you think I am wrong, I've already asked erachima to explain what I mean in what he deems the correct way. You can give it a shot if you wish too.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I have to the best of my knowledge never spoken to Codename Lisa before this AfD, though since I last paid significant attention to the community about 6 years ago I may be mistaken.

But at risk of forking the discussion, yes, I initially just wanted a clarification of why the phrase "self-promotion" was used, since I could find no evidence of it by looking at the contribution history of major page editors. I initially assumed she simply misspoke and wanted her to take back the accidental accusation. Lisa's continued refusal to answer that question is now becoming troubling in its own right, however, as she has now definitely and deliberately chosen to maintain an accusation of WP:COI that is, as far as I can tell, completely meritless. --erachima talk 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have ran into Lisa all over this project and she always seems to be a reasonable person. I think this whole thing is a misunderstanding. Above she says A promotional article about a promotional device is "self-promotional" which means she meant something else. Chillum 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: every comment we make on wikipedia is subject to WP:consensus.there is a clear diference between WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SELFPROMOTION is often used when you suspect a WP:COI. From my WP:NPOV erachima (talk · contribs) is right! No WP:consensus stipulated that A promotional article about a promotional device is "self-promotional" Wikicology (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Wikicology: Hello. Your argument is based on lack of the existence of the consensus, not based on the consensus. If there is no consensus against something, then that something is allowed. But nevertheless, I have asked several times so far: If that is not how I must have explained it, then how must I have explained it? i.e. if I am wrong, what is the right way?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally have no idea what you think you mean by "self-promotion" because your usage is so non-standard, so I can't tell you how to say what you're thinking. Just rephrase it almost literally any other way and you're probably fine. --erachima talk 17:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
So, you have no idea what I mean but are certain that it involves accusation of COI? With this attitude, rephrasing it is just as risky as not rephrasing it because if I rephrase it and this time you think, say, I am accusing someone else of having an illegal affairs, then I'll be in for some real treat, won't I?
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What you are doing is accidentally accusing people of COI. I do not know what you think you are doing because you are using words wrong. So fix it. --erachima talk 18:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
What you are doing is assuming evil faith. Per your own word, you don't know what I mean. Yet you choose to think it is accusation of COI that I mean; you even name a specific user too! As I said, in this state, "fixing it" runs the risk of you thinking that I am doing some other form of evil-doing. As long as you have this attitude, you are not welcome in my talk page anymore.
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually he did not assume "evil" faith. You used a term whose primary and only definition means to promote oneself. He did not assume you meant the author had a COI he asked you. The difference is when you assume you just think something is true, in this case he asked you because he was not assuming.

You failed to assume good faith when you interpreted the question as "trolling, personal attack and failure to assume good faith".

Take a step back, read the dictionary definition of "self-promotion" and consider the possibility that your choice of words caused a misunderstanding and that nobody is assuming bad faith about you.

He did not assume that "self-promotion" meant a person promoting themselves(thus a COI), the dictionary states that as the meaning of the term. Rather than assume anything he asked you for clarification because it did not seem to make sense.

I thought this was all a misunderstanding but now that it has all been explained you are still accusing erachima of somehow assuming evil of you. It was a reasonable interpretation of your words and not an assumption of bad faith.

The section heading and the warning were the wrong way to respond but so was replacing his question with a {{rpa}} template. This is much ado about nothing. Chillum 01:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Chillum
I'll address things one by one:
  1. You're still discussing a past self-reverted action. I can do nothing else beyond a self-revert.
  2. I have also agreed to take a step back; only I am still unable to figure out the right version. (Doing so is incredibly difficult under the torrent of personal remarks.) Here are the words that refer to the same thing:

    But in practice, this certain article's sole purpose is to show how cute she is. Now, that is self-promotion.

    How does Sky6t come in? I have no bloody idea.
  3. WP:NPA says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Therefore, starting with Special:Diff/prev/620788130, erachima cannot eat his cake and keep it too. Either he acknowledges that wording is the problem and therefore only wording must be discussed, or still believing that I am accusing someone, in which case there is a burden of evidence. Yet, since diff #620788130 he has been doing both. This perfectly seems a case of WP:ASPERSIONS to me.
I cut you a deal: I will remove or redact that comment of mine which erachima feels are implicit arguments on person if he removes all the comments on my person.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Look, if you ever felt that someone is trolling or personal attacking, remember: You have the right to remain silent; it is inexpensive, insults nobody and is very effective.

@Erachima: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by making grammatical errors, especially not so persistently. And I'm sure Sky6t is a big boy (or big girl). He can make a move if he feels unjustly accused.

@Chillum: Okay, I don't assume to give advice to admins. They already think I am a pig. But you know, the real world is not like Transformers movies. In the real world, Transformers don't help U.S. government fight Chinese and U.S. government only helps the Transformers if it feels not doing this leads to their extinction. On the contrary, Transformers would look with disgust at both U.S. and China.

Fleet Command (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

FleetCommand, the only transformers movie I have seen is "The Transformers: The Movie (1986)". I am pretty sure in the real world transformers are fictional characters that don't really exist. I am confused by your statement but will just assume it was a joke that went over my head. Chillum 20:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Huh! Lucky you. I watched Transformers (film), became a fan, watched Transformers 2 and Transformers 3 and now I don't really feel the first Transformers is that great either. Not gonna waste my time on Transformers 4. But your sig does transform! Fleet Command (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, this discussion was definitely not about Transformers but, by all means, please, feel free divert. It is no less against Wikipedia policy than the original discussion.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Chillum: The message looks dead serious before addressing you and the first two sentences are still more so. I see no reason to assume it suddenly turned into a joke. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic harassment[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic harassment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do that again[edit]

Editing a redirect to prevent moving a page over it is considered one of the most blatantly obvious examples of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. In the case of Microsoft Magnifier, I've now provided citations for the name in question, and so your edit has created additional administrative work for no good reason. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
Nice of you to drop by, although, as always, you are here with a cease and desist order. When are you going to start assuming good faith and realize that I edited out of need, not out of hostility with you? And anyway, I contested your move with a revert. Counter-reverting would be edit war. It's been two years since we've been telling you to settle your disputes with dispute resolution, not edit warring.
Concerned,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No matter what your opinion may be, you cannot edit a redirect just to prevent a page being moved over it (as you have even admitted to doing just now). I repeat: this is WP:GAMING. You should have stated your concern at the talk page instead.
Also, as you insist on obstructing so many of my edits - even including the minor ones such as the obvious grammar corrections at Template:.NET Framework version history - I would like to remind you of WP:HOUNDING. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
This is equal to saying "you must not make a much-needed change because this will effectively prevent me from engaging in edit warring." You will excuse me that I won't take any of these seriously, given your past history.
Now, you still haven't asked me why I disagree with the move. Don't you want to know?
Concerned,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMMONSENSE isn't a valid reason here. If you have a different reason in mind, do let me know. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Common sense is the motive, not reason. Isn't it obvious? The reason is WP:NATURAL. Your title of choice is obscure and non-natural.
Concerned,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Next-Generation Secure Computing Base[edit]

You are well known for your contributions to articles related to the Microsoft Windows operating system. Would you be willing to help me with the Next-Generation Secure Computing Base article? I have a lot of text written, most of it pertaining to the history of the technology, but I am honestly not sure where to place it in the article as everything looks like a jumbled mess. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Latrodectus[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Latrodectus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Foxit[edit]

Namaste. You've reverted my addition to the Foxit article, and in your edit summary you referenced MOS:COMPUTING#License, which explicitly gives an example almost exactly like the edit I made to the infobox. Template:Software distribution (in use on the article) also shows "freemium" as a compensation model and not a licensing scheme; which echoes both the example given at MOS and the edit I made to the infobox. The lede for freemium also says as much. I believe this may have been a simple oversight. Could you please review them, and mayhaps reinstate my previous contributions? Thank you. -- dsprc [talk] 14:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, dsprc
MOS:COMPUTING § License requires the licensing scheme to be described accurately and concisely. Your edit is accurate enough but is redundant. If it is "freemium" then it is proprietary as well. We don't have such an acceptable form as "non-proprietary freemium". (We have commercial free software, but you have to specify the free software license plus the support model.)
The sentence "freemium" as a compensation model and not a licensing scheme" is self-contradictory. Licensing scheme is a distribution model and more.]
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Visual Basic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fields Medal[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fields Medal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with a template[edit]

Hi Codename Lisa, you're a template editor and an editor I trust—perhaps you can help me with something. I just deleted Capital of Macau, as Macau is just a city and doesn't have a capital, but it's linked on Template:Capitals in Asia. I really don't want it to display there, as it's likely to be recreated if it stands, but the template seems to be based on some hard-coded Asia template. Templates aren't my forte. Could you take a look? Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, BDD. I took care of the red link. Do you want a link to Macau be displayed or do you want it entirely suppressed from Template:Capitals in Asia?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I had imagined it would be suppressed, but what you did really works too. Either way. --BDD (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

A bit harsh[edit]

Your dealing with ConradS (talk · contribs) might have been a bit bitey. He sent me this message complaining that his first edits, which I believe were made in good faith, but just poorly executed, were called vandalism. I've been known to bite too much myself, so I come by my sensitivity to the issue honestly. I'm glad the information has been properly incorporated in the article, but a gentler hand dealing with new users might encourage more of them to stick around. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WikiDan61.
I must say ouch! I didn't really factor that! The damage to the article was severe, significant amount of information was missing. But yes, biting a newcomer is not really excusable. I dropped the ball there. Now what do you suggest?
Of course, it is a bit of surprise that he took all the blame when he did. After all, I contacted you instead, didn't I? But that's that.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The huge changes were his. My involvement was just formatting his changes into something readable. I suggest that you reach out to him and assure him that his contributions as a knowledgeable software vendor are valued as long as he takes time to familiarize himself with the policies first. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but after kicking him out of your talk page? He probably thinks I am a bitch right now. I'll see what I can do.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has worked with Codename Lisa in the past, I will say that it's uncharacteristic of him/her to be impolite like this and as long as (s)he learns from this, I personally don't have a problem. Naturally though I believe it may now be best to have another user take over from Codename Lisa, per the comment immediately above. @WikiDan61: I think you're doing a great job at that, at first glance.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jasper. Long time, no see!
Although don't deny that I certainly didn't take WP:BITE into consideration, I must say "impolite" is a bit extreme. I certainly didn't use rough language and/or profanity. In addition, the scale of the damage was large and lot of information was lost; in consequence, any remedial action was bound to be harsh because it involved a complete reversion.
Of course, if you care to – how should I put it? – share the yields of your experience, per se, I'd be very glad to know what you would have done from the moment you saw the edit.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry if the word I used was a bit too extreme.
In this situation I've learned that using the word "damage" is probably best avoided: it can be aggravating. Instead I would merely omit framing it as "damage": I'd keep the explanation of why it was not good and not try to emphasize the severity unless the user keeps repeating it, and even then I'd avoid the word "damage". Usually the user is misled, and merely needs more guidance.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Copy that. Wilco. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Coming back to this thread a bit late, perhaps. I didn't "kick [ConradS] off my talk page" per se. I removed his comment with the edit summary that he should take up his beef with Lisa directly, since he was using my talk page to communicate with her. As a new user, he didn't seem to have a complete grasp of how to work user talk pages, so I don't think he realized he should contact Lisa directly with his questions to her. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Windows Live Messenger may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Use mdy dates|date=April 2012}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Visual Basic 6.0 logo and wordmark.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Visual Basic 6.0 logo and wordmark.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Earthquake prediction. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

GNU disambig[edit]

If partial titles are not allowed in GNU (disambiguation) then why are 9965 GNU and Gnu Snowboards allowed?

Or can List of GNU packages go on the disambig page, because there are a lot of GNU things other than GNU. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is quite simple: "Gnu" in "Gnu Snowboards" is the title of the subject. If someone asks "what snowboard are you using?", the answer could be "GNU". Same goes for 9965 GNU asteroid. But in "GNU Project", removing the project changes the subject to GNU. It is exactly like the WP:PTM example: One cannot say "I went to Baltimore" to mean "I went to Baltimore Zoo".
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but GNU is not the same as GNU Project. GNU itself is an operating system only. There is a big collection of "GNU" software. If someone said "what software are you using?", and someone replied "GNU", they very most likely would not be talking about the GNU operating system. Or if they asked what project that software was from, GNU could be the answer.
Can List of GNU packages be listed there? If people are looking for GNU software other than the operating system itself, this will point them to it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Exactly.
IMHO, A link to "List of GNU packages" belongs to GNU article. Disambiguation pages are meant to guide people to the correct sense. Filling them with stuff related to one of those specific fields is a cruel thing. I myself have felt it when I look up something in Wikipedia and end up in a dab page.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
But if someone types in "GNU" then they are probably looking for GNU software or the GNU project instead of the GNU operating system. And then when that isn't what they are looking for, if they go to the GNU dab it isn't going to help them either. GNU software doesn't have to run on the GNU operating system, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You're saying they type "GNU" to get to "bash"? That's a bit far-fetched but GNU article definitely helps them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, if you are not convinced, you can always transfer the discussion to the article talk page and start an RFC there. Maybe you could gather consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

Dear Codename Lisa, I love your user logo badly! It is very cute! So many thanks for your suggestions to me, that I could know how to modify a wikitable and sign my name. You are an outstanding and reliable wiki editor. Thank you and nice to meet you! Janagewen (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

About the revert on the "List of Windows Phone 8.1 devices" page[edit]

Hi, and I'm here to inform you there's no such thing as a "memory card reader" in mobile phones and I'll hope you'll understand that. They're called "memory card slots" and every mobile phone shop around the world, mobile phone info website and phone manufacturer website/instruction manual implores they're memory card slots because they're not totally external off the phone though you can remove such cards from the slot.

However if you still don't believe me then ask any one of your colleagues who went to info sites like GSMArena, Windows Phone Central or even Engadget and you'll know from them that those sites never call mobile phone memory cards slots "readers". One last thing, the Memory card reader article is not accurate and I don't know how the "Memory card slot" article got deleted or missing from Wikipedia but if I can get more info about the differences about the two as citations then I'm really moving that article's name to "Memory card reader/slot" and add info from that deleted/missing article. Kyrios320 (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Kyrios320. I already know about what you think. And I still don't agree. Simple English rules says if something reads a memory card, then it is a memory card reader. Now, if you think there are pragmatics issues that I am unaware of, please try citing a source; a reliable one.
I am afraid I don't think my colleagues are reliable sources regardless of their visiting habits to the aforementioned sites.
Also, you need to take the issue to the article talk page if you are hoping to achieve additional consensus.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

About revert in ReFS[edit]

Hello! You reverted my edit in ReFS. Let me explain my edit. ReFS, as a new filesystem was first a server technology, debuted in Windows 2012 (but not in the equivalent client OS, Windows 8). After some refinements in Windows 2012 R2, ReFS made its (limited) way into Windows 8.1 (the equivalent client OS for the 2012 R2 Server). As an important side note, Microsoft's server operating systems are 64-bit only since Windows 2008 R2. Now, probably it was easy to transfer the ReFS filesystem driver from the 64-bit server version to the 64-bit client version, and it would have been significantly harder to compile a new, 32-bit version of it, but I'm only guessing of course. It is a fact, though, that c:\Windows\system32\drivers\ReFS.sys exists on a 64-bit install of Windows 8.1, but it is missing from the 32-bit version.

I am trying to find a source for my claim, since it is original research, but I couldn't yet.

Cheers, SyP (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Syp. So, let's see if I am understanding correctly this time: "64-bit" in your original edit refers to Windows, not ReFS architecture.
I am not sure whether it is original research or not. Maybe you should consult the OR noticeboard. Of course, going after the source is good.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've meant 32-bit or 64-bit Windows, not ReFS. I will consult the talk page of ReFS first. Have a nice day! SyP (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on Talk:Zoho Office Suite[edit]

Hi, I'm User:Anupmehra. I noticed, we have some different opinion on contents of the Zoho Office Suite article, and this is why I've initiated a discussion on article's talk page. Please voice your opinion there. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

On a slightly unrelated note, I'm sure you know what 3RR is, I'm sure you know you are dangerously close to it. I'm going to choose not to template you over this, but please do not continue to edit war. You have 2 editors disputing this, please discuss on the talk page about exactly what bits you have issue with being removed. Wikipedia is not a list of products, so I don't see the advantage with keeping a full record of all the products. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh... I love talk page discussion. They have always been a source of teamwork joy to me. But discuss what? What is your problem exactly?
Somewhat frustrated,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Media player discussion[edit]

Hello, would you like to discuss the edit and subsequent revert in Template:Media player? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondra.pelech (talkcontribs) 20:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ondra.pelech
It is a pleasure to have you in my talk page. Yes, indeed I love discussing it. What do you have in mind?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain you reasons for the revert in more detail? You are indeed right, that the vertical space has grown, but it wasn't in vain. The change added a lot of information and also removed few redundant entries. Also I don't see how the distinction between Free software and Proprietary software could be non-Neutral point of view; I skimmed the page but haven't found anything about software licensing. So could you also comment on this? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondra.pelech (talkcontribs) 22:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Ondra.pelech
I am terribly sorry for the delay in my response. I was ... horribly busy. Since I won't be able to discuss this fully, please go ahead and do the change anyway. After all, you are entitled to receive a full discussion after being reverted. So, instead of that, you can at least have your changes.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Well, sleepy and confused. But mostly confused.[edit]

Hey there,

Sorry for the confusion, but you've lost me. What two articles are you talking about saving at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lp (Unix)? And would you rather have the article live at System V printing system or Lp (Unix) if we do the merge+redirect? (Oh, and do you think the rewrite establishes notability? I'm assuming so, but I just wanted to make sure.)

Thanks!

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LC
The two articles that I am talking about is System V printing system and Lp (Unix). To make a long story short, if you believe one of them is not in danger and hence needs no saving, this fine by me. I prefer "System V printing system" as the title because it has an inherently larger semantic domain and can accommodate broader discussions. Finally, as for the question in the parentheses, I'd like to withhold a lot of what I think per 90/10 law; all I say right now is that with a merger, current contents and the potential for some further improvements that we can discuss later, I am ready to withdraw my nomination.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't thought of a redirect as "saving", but that makes sense. Having read up on WP:MERGE (never needed to do one before) it looks like we can do this WP:BOLDly, but it wouldn't hurt to ping the folks at the AfD discussion first. I'll do that tomorrow if you don't beat me to it. Also happy to discuss improvements before that process kicks off. Signing off.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Traffic at AfD[edit]

Hi.

I'm assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't have any problem with keeping articles on operating system utility programs so long as there are a few reliable sources that discuss the program beyond a bare description of the program's features. Based on a half-dozen of your AfDs nominations, I'm also getting the impression that you're not checking to see if these sources exist. I'll go a little further out on the limb and say that I'm thinking it's annoying to you that I've decided to oppose almost all of those AfDs, and I'm certainly annoyed that a rare vacation evening that had been set aside for nethack was devoted instead to trawling through bad scans of ancient issues of PC Magazine.

So. Let's talk about annoyance reduction.

For your future nominations in this area, I'd like you to ask of you a favor: add a sentence or two along the lines of "The best sources I could find were x, y and z; they don't offer any more detail than the man page. A quick check of PC Magazine and Infoworld via Google Books turned up p, q and r, but these are only passing references and there doesn't appear to be anything else of more substance." If I see you're making an effort, that's great, I'm happy to work with that. If you're making an effort and not recording the results, I can't distinguish that from no effort being made.

I do have access to a couple of world-class research libraries, and as I demonstrated at Lp (Unix) I'm not adverse to sitting down in the stacks for an afternoon tracking down trivia that's not accessible online. If you think it would helpful, you're more than welcome to ping me with articles you'd like to put up at AfD and I'll take a look.

And with that, I have a valkyrie and a kitten who would like to go stomping through Gehennom.

Be well,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Lesser Cartographies
I must say this is awkward, to say the least. You see, in deciding to help keep Lp (Unix), its notability was never a factor, let alone a great factor. If notability had been a huge factor, (1) I'd have never consented and (2) the article would never have been kept. The five pillars of Wikipedia (5P) override all other policies (or their interpretations thereof). I consented to keep the article only because you put up such a good effort. The value of your act of working and the value of cooperating with your supersedes deleting any piece of article; even Wikipedia policy concurs with this morally correct verdict.
Now, here is the catch: Sometimes, not only notability is not a factor in keeping an article, it is not a factor in nominating it for deletion either. In other words, I can provide evidence of having searched for sources only and only if I do so; and I will do so only and only if I feel that doing so actually has an impact on the nomination. I don't know how many of my nominations you've seen, but notification system suggests Deltree, Atrrib and Lp. So, you know that WP:NOTMANUAL was sometimes my primary drive. This policy is one of the 5P and takes precedence over everything, including notability. To resolve this issue, a complete rewrite is required. A complete rewrite can be done even after the article is deleted; in that light, you don't need stop your kitten and Valkyrie from stomping through Gehennom. (If you need access to deleted material, an admin can and will help.) So all in all, to fulfill your favor, I need post ex facto knowledge of what's is going to happen in AfD. (I need a time machine or psychic abilities.)
Finally, let me show you how big the problem is: Template:Windows commands and Template:Unix commands show a portion of articles whose existence is in violation of Wikipedia policies. (You can tell me that Wikipedia is a work in progress but please bear in mind that some progresses must never start; like a robbery.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Codename Lisa. First, let me introduce myself. I'm a scientist and as such I'm used to (and respect) frank exchanges on the merits of ideas. If you think that my work on salvaging an article doesn't meet your expectations, I'd much rather you tell me that than give me a pass based on effort. My funding agencies don't care about how much work I put in, only the quality. I hope you'll be comfortable doing the same.
As to policy violations requiring deletion: We have (as of a few minutes ago) 230,372 articles that need references (and those are distinct from the 239,621 article that need more references), 14,040 articles with original research, and 5906 where the neutrality is disputed. All of those articles are policy violations. The community has decided that it's better to have some articles violate a subset of policies than to do a grand purge. (See Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs for the current numbers.)
This doesn't apply to all policy violations, of course, but those (with one exception) are usually handled via WP:CSD: copyright violations, attack pages, WP:BLP, patent nonsense, etc. The single exception is notability, which essentially is a judgment that a policy-conformant article cannot be written on the topic due to the absence of reliable sources.
So, to the best of my understanding, if you run across an article that is written like a manual, here's the template to use:
That's the way things are done at the moment. The way you're proposing could also work, but I don't think it would end up working as well. The vast majority of our editors will never start an article, much less take one to FA (nice work, btw!). If they're looking up ATTRIB and don't find an article, their first impulse isn't going to be to start writing one. However, if they do find an awful, templated article, some of them will be moved to try to improve it. That process gets us to more and more high-quality articles than a process that removes policy-violating articles (with the obvious exceptions).
The best expression of this I've seen is WP:Deletion is not cleanup: If the subject of an article has been proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Articles are listed from time to time at the Articles for deletion page with the rationale being something along the lines of, “This article is a mess. It needs to be rewritten.” Discussions like that are often speedily closed because that is not a valid criterion; besides, if the article needs to be rewritten, that is what the {{rewrite}} template is for. If an article can be improved through normal editing, simply fix it.
I'm looking forward to continuing to work with you. Best, Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi.
Please look at the following links:
These are examples of documentation pages. Per WP:NOTMANUAL, contents like these are not allowed in Wikipedia. An article that entirely fails to comply with this policy cannot be improved through normal editing and needs to be deleted. Putting {{rewrite}} an {{manual}} is a privilege, extended to well-meaning editors, not a right or mandate. Used otherwise, they are nothing but worthless strips of text that only serve to ridicule the person who inserted them.
Wikipedia is a work in progress. But any progress is to be made, bad foundations that impede progress must be removed. For example, as you said, timekeeping on Unix is a deep scholarly topic. However, as long as Date (Unix) article exists in its current form, no one will bother write an scholarly article.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You lost me at "cannot be improved". Given that there are multiple magazine articles about each of these commands, and that these articles look nothing like manuals, I think it's a pretty trivial step to writing a not-manual encyclopedia article that summarizes the magazine articles. What am I missing? You don't consider DELTREE a manual-like article at this point, right? (if for no other reason than it doesn't give any of the command syntax). Of course, there may exist a command that is so obscure that there are no reliable sources outside of the manuals. /bin/true might be one (although I could probably find several discussions about how this is the simplest useful program to write, and how write it in bash, assembly, etc.). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
n.b. Yep, there exist reliable sources for /bin/true. [3] Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Why lost? "Deltree" and "Lp" were not manual-like. They had notability problems, which you solved. "Print" is written like a manual, which you seem to agree with its deletion. "Date" is also like that but you are interested in rewriting and have said "keep". (Only I don't understand what connects the dots here.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey there,

Just gave a technical keynote talk that went over unusually well. I'm still basking in the endorphins. So while I'm still filled with loving-kindness for all humanity and most of the intel processor architecture....

You are what connects the dots. You have a reputation of being one of the vanishingly small number of editors here who would have an understanding of why DELTREE or ATTRIB were actually important. So when you nominated that set of articles for deletion, you were putting your reputation behind the assertion that these articles cannot be improved. So far, so good.

For some subset of these article, reliable sources exist and they can be improved—you didn't know that at the time, and if you didn't grow up reading Infoworld and PC Magazine there's no reason I would expect you to know that. So I asked you, for future articles that you're considering for AfD, to follow WP:BEFORE and make a good-faith effort to determine whether reliable sources exist before you make the nomination.

Then the conversation seems to have gone off the rails. At one point I thought you were arguing that if an article is written in the form of a manual, it ought to be deleted, and that you have no responsibility to first see if the article could be improved with WP:RS as an alternative to deletion. That's so far outside the norms here that I'm certain I've misunderstood you. We both agree that articles that cannot be improved should be deleted, and I'm nearly certain we both agree that mere issues of writing (including WP:NOTMANUAL) are not a sufficient reason to delete an article than can be improved. And now that you know that PC Magazine had an endearing habit of writing articles like The Top Seven CP/M Commands You've Never Heard Of!, you're willing to poke around a bit in google books before nominating another command-line article for deletion.

Are we good?

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, LC
I saw your message two days ago but either didn't have time or couldn't focus strongly enough to write an adequate reply. Have you noticed the tag at the top of my talk page? Well, when it comes to Wikipedia, I am one distracted guy these days.
Anyway, IMHO, writing Wikipedia is sometimes a lot like attending to an overgrown flower terrace or balcony: There are pots everywhere but not all of them have flowers. Some have flowers only; some have flowers entangled with weeds; some have only weeds because the flowers have long died. The first order of business is to take out the weed. Pots containing the weed are the easiest: Pick a box, unroot the weeds and toss them in the box. Changing the pot's soil and planting something else in it is both tedious and does not the same emergency attached to it as weed-killing. Unweeding the pots with the flowers is more difficult; sometimes it cannot be done overnight, even though one is ready to work on them.
Now, here is my perception: Articles that look purely like a documentation page or tutorial are like dandelion: They are purely weed in the context of Wikipedia but make good contributions to open-source projects that collect man pages. Take the article Date (Unix) for instance. The article title is analogous to a pot. It must contain what is analogous to a flower, i.e. the intricacies of date management in Unix and Unix-like but instead contains a man page, which is analogous to the weed, even if it is a beautiful weed like dandelion. The weed must be unrooted, i.e. the article deleted; then, actual flower planted instead, i.e. scholarly contents about date management in Unix. So, yes, when it comes to articles whose contents must be entirely replaced, the rule of thumb is "delete first, rewrite when you had time". The deletion and rewrite need not to be connected.
Of course, my flower analogy ends with articles that have notability problem. It is not a case of an overgrown flower terrace anymore. I promise that from now on, I will try to have a more transparent approach towards providing evidence of notability (or lack, thereof) as you requested. One can argue that notability is an extension of verifiability and the burden of providing the source is with the contributor. But I do agree that we cannot build an encyclopedia by eluding responsibility anytime the policy allowed. (I wish people understood that the latter cuts both ways!)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Future[edit]

Hello! How are you, how is your work going on?

Is everything fine???

I'm opening my account after a long time. Anyways I saw something unexpected on the web today, The Verge and Softpedia reported that Microsoft has dropped its code name for the upcoming Windows version simply call it to be Windows which was expected to be Windows 9. See it here and here. Also you may try this.

Now if it becomes true. Then I think it'll be a lot of problem for Wikipedia as all the OS code names have separate articles and the new OS will be called simply Windows, here'll be lot of confusion. Isn't it?

I think I must create remove the redirect and edit an article named Windows (operating system) (like Android (operating system) for it. What so you think???  HPD   talk  11:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, HPD. So nice to see you. I was deliberately ignoring Wikipedia these days but came just because of your message. Face-smile.svg
Anyway, please keep a record of these links but do nothing for now. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot have anything on this yet. Wording of the sources strongly suggests that it is a pure speculation: "Microsoft drops hints in several commercials". This is too shaky for a company that has a history of breaking promises. Also please note that before Windows 3.0, Windows didn't have any number in its name. Yet, we have Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0 and Windows 2.1x. We cannot rule out the possibly of Wikipedia articles still having numbers in their names.
Nice to see you around again.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep! You're correct, per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't do anything at least for now. You know now-a-days there are rumors more than actual news, for example, an unknown site reported that the next version of Android i.e Android L will be code named as "Lion" and 6 other sites copied that source saying it. Anyway, I'll keep a record of those links (regarding Windows) and will contact you if Microsoft announces anything officially regarding this.
Thanks you so much for your kind words, but you know I'm also avoiding Wikipedia because its feels lonely now, Drew have left editing since 4-5 months as he's getting busy with his job and couldn't spend time here. So, I'm also avoiding.
But you can message me anytime you want, also you can give a call or message on my public phone number: +91-7377660204. Good luck! And Thanks.  HPD   talk  13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review##File:Microsoft_Windows_XP_logo_and_wordmark.svg[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review##File:Microsoft_Windows_XP_logo_and_wordmark.svg. Thanks. - TheChampionMan1234 05:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit of nostalgia for you[edit]

Diskettenlocher.jpg The floppy disk punch of goodwill
A reminder that while I disagree with you, you're someone worth disagreeing with. You do a lot of good work here, and I appreciate it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of extinct mammals. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Internet information services article[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DE logics (talkcontribs) 04:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion[edit]

Hi Lisa, I have no strong opinion about your revert at Hibernation (computing); however I don't understand your edit summary there at all. Could you please elaborate on it? Where exactly was the change from "The" to "the"? Keep in mind that I use a screen reader, so that change isn't so obvious to me. Graham87 14:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I realise what you were talking about. So I take it you didn't like the other recent edits either? Or did you not intend to revert them? You seem to know more about this subject than I do ... the article is only on my watchlist to guard against vandalism. Graham87 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi.
I deeply and sincerely apologize for the inconvenience that I caused you. It was entirely my fault. I intended to revert to your revision, not over your revision. It has never happened before and I assure you, I will do my best to make sure it never ever happens again.
I hope you'll find the current state of affairs to your liking.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries, sounds good to me. Graham87 01:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)