User talk:Codename Lisa/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 10

Contents

Re: Thanks for DmC

Hello there, Codename Lisa

You're welcome. The synopsis I started with was rather overwhelming. I just hope it will satisfy people, and not get overly messed about with by unregistered users, like the main Halo article was before I asked for it to be semi-protected.

Best wishes --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nero Linux

Hello Codename Lisa! I appreciate your concern about keeping articles accurate! I do too! :) My apologies for not linking sources! :P

In regards to Nero Linux, the product is certainly dead. I've been a Linux user for years and know a lot about Linux software. Here is one source supporting that Nero Linux is dead: http://forum.my.nero.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=12578&view=findpost&p=65911 I am aware that it is a forum post, however if you look closely the post was made by a Nero Employee. There are also various other sites with information on the discontinuation of Nero Linux. Also note that Nero Linux is no longer sold on Nero.com and a lot of the stuff related to it has been removed.

Unless you object in a reasonable amount of time I will revert to my edit and add the source.

Cheers! Cityscape4 (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you. I am fine with leaving the article with the licence currently stated. I was most concerned about having it updated as past software, since it has been discontinued. Thanks for your time! :) Have a great day! Cityscape4 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Contribution to .NET Framework version history

Regarding your message to me on my modification being rolled back, please view http://www.visualstudiolaunch.com/vs2012vle/Home ; Looks like "Modern app" is correct to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bc3tech (talkcontribs) 13:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I wonder if you could take another look at this edit, deleting Nuclear option. The Talk-page section was begun by one editor (Asherkobin) on January 8, 2013, but after that there are only two editors (Mathew5000 and Kauffner), not three, in an active dispute over the content of the article (specifically the very definition of the term "nuclear option"; it would benefit from a third opinion. Mathew5000 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I do understand your concern but for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of a third opinion is already present. You feel that a single passive editor does not have enough merit but the fact is that a 3O itself involves a single passive editor. Of course, User:TransporterMan has more experience than I do. I'm dropping him a note but my personal advice is WP:RFC. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, no Third Opinion Wikipedian is subject to criticism for removing a dispute with three editors involved. On the other hand, there is no rule to absolutely require their removal. There was discussion on the 3O talk page a year or so ago in which most of the participants expressed some discomfort about the two-editor standard or the civility standard being enforced too strictly, but neither did they come to the conclusion that 3O'ers ought to be spanked for strictly enforcing them. The staleness standard was adopted at that time so that multi-editor or incivil disputes could remain on the board for 6 days to see if someone would take them, but if they proved to be too non-conforming for any volunteer to be willing to take them that there would be a clear reason to remove them. My own mostly arbitrary standard is that I will not remove a dispute for having more than two editors involved unless (a) there are 5 or more editors involved or (b) the third editor entered the dispute for the first time after the 3O listing was made and with the clear purpose of providing a third opinion but whether or not s/he was responding to the 3O listing. So I would not have removed this listing, but I have no problem with Lisa having done so. I would, however, have removed it 9 hours and 12 minutes after Lisa did, not because it had 3 editors but because it was more than 6 days old and was stale. In light of that fact, let me suggest, Mathew5000, that rather than relisting this at 3O that you list it at the dispute resolution noticeboard, but you need to do so quickly since the discussion is already 6 days old and recent discussion is needed both at 3O and at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Mathew5000 (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

MS Software licensing in the intro

Thank you for your link to the BRD wiki flow article. Let's discuss: Why are you opposed to adding licensing information to the introductory paragraph of some (and interestingly not all) of the proprietary components of Microsoft's Office suite? The information doesn't confuse and is a major classification method for software. I'll await the discussion eagerly. Liberulo (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello.
Thanks for starting the topic. The main reason is inaccuracy. Simply put: Saying Microsoft Word is "non-free commercial software" is pure incorrect. There are free versions of Word: We have Word viewer, Word Starter (see Office 2010) as well as full version of Microsoft Word given out through DreamSpark and BizSpark programs. Even the mainstream version of Word is trialware, rather than non-free commercial. So, let's not call a spade a shovel.
As for why only in these two articles, I only have so much time and energy. I can't dig the whole Wikipedia or the entire article itself.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

MSS (Microsoft Safety Scanner)

You have new message/s Hello, Codename Lisa. You have MSS EULA at Talk:Microsoft Safety Scanner's talk page. LittleBen (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  • You have new message/s Hello, Codename Lisa. You have MSS EULA at Talk:Microsoft Safety Scanner's talk page. LittleBen (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Surface RT article

Here is why I had removed a small amount of text previously, relating to returns and the reason for returns:

1: The word "many" (how many?)
2: The word "frustrated" (what exactly is "frustrated", and how was this measured?)
3: The fact that it linked to an article that quotes one analyst who is taking guesses as to how many returns there were and why.

I removed it again, because it is lacking both clarity and sufficient evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.99.84 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My clarification request at Windows Preinstallation Environment

Hi Codename Lisa. I inserted a clarification request into the article because the statement 'A "reset" completely wipes out everything on the system' is vague and non-technical.

I estimate that it probably means that a "reset" deletes the system partition and recreates it, but it could possibly also mean that it deletes all partitions on the system drive, or possibly on all writable storage devices connected to the computer (if one interprets "system" as "computer system"), or that, if one takes the meanings of the words "completely" and "everything" literally, it even deletes the BIOS. "Wiping" in reference to data is also used in the meaning of erasing securely, i.e. overwriting the actual bits of the data instead of just marking the space the data occupies as empty, and I'm guessing wiping in this sense is not what happens here.

Hope that explains it.

Kind regards, Silver hr (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your update clarifies things, at least for me. Good work, and fast too :) Silver hr (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Windows 1.0 logo discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As there is no way to submit my compliance elsewhere, I do it here. You reversed my changes regarding the removal of Windows 1.0 logo, which cannot be found on any media from 1980's-1990's and has appeared for the first time on February 17, 2012 on Windows blog for the comparison with the current Windows 8 logo. The reason he/she provides is: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We have three sources here.

However, In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For which reason the Windows blog article and two derivated articles in PCMag and PCAdvisor are considered more reliable than photos and screenshots of Windows 1.0 retail boxes, distribution media, the operating environment itself which can be easily found on the web using Google where you for sure will not find anything similar to that logo? -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Aaleksanyants
I read your message and there are a number of things we need to discuss:
  1. Did you know that you can use your Wikipedia ID to log into Commons as well? Please do so. I was not certain that it was you in Commons.
  2. Try putting yourself in my shoe: I have an article published by Microsoft that claims the disputed logo to be Windows 1.0 logo and two reputable magazines which affirm it. On the other hand, I have you, whom I have never met; you tell me that the logo is fake, that Microsoft is lying and that the two magazines are also in error. So, which one should I believe? You? or the sources? Both Wikipedia and Commons say I should believe the source. If you believe the logo is fake, you must first discuss it by providing a reliable source of your own.
  3. You asked what constitutes a reliable source. A reliable source becomes reliable by three elements: Writer, publisher and contents. In case of the Microsoft source, the writer is a Microsoft employee and the publisher is confirmed to be Microsoft. That means the source is not forgery. (It is almost impossible for third party to publish on Microsoft website.) In case of PC Advisor and PC Magazine, the publishers are very important because they don't just publish anything; they check it first.
  4. You actually have a lot of different places to go. You can study WP:DR for a list of them but here is a quick guide: If this discussion didn't prove satisfactory, you can request a third opinion. A third opinion is not serious, so if it did not satisfy you, you can request an RFC by inserting {{rfc}} at the top of this discussion. Then, there are dispute resolution noticeboards. A mediator is already assigned to this case, so all you have to is to wait.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again and thank you for your response,

Let me not to agree with you regarding the strength of the sources you provided - it was enough for Sam Moore to post a fake in Windows blog to make to other publishers believe that the information there is correct. I have already contacted the authors of two other publications by email and here is the reply I received from Simon Jary (PC Advisor): "An interesting conspiracy theory! If you'd like to write this up into an article we'd be happy to consider publishing it to see if any other details emerge." No doubt that they both just considered the publication by Sam Moore as a reliable source and did not make any investigations before reprinting it.

Other problem - there is a similar PNG image Windows_logo_and_watermark_-_1985.png which needs to perform the same actions which will be decided for the SVG image, I just don't know if there is a way to budle them for not to discuss separately.

Regarding your hint, I tried to log in to commons using my Wikipedia ID and got "No such user" error, and I could not find any link to "log in using Wikipedia ID" or something similar.

The third opinion is not the case because on the discussion page we already had FOUR opinions claiming that the logo should be removed (submitted by me, User:Dmcq, User:Austronaut and by User:SGBailey), but despite of these, you took the final decision to close the discussion!

Now the file is renamed to something like "Proposed but unused logo" which is not the case, because a plenty if localized pages still place the image on Windows 1.x/2.x description pages without any additional notices.

Regards,

Aaleksanyants (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look around and the earliest I can find this 'logo' is from September 7 2010 in Logopedia, just before the 25th anniversary of Windows. Dmcq (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello
First, his name is Sam Moreau. Second, he works for Microsoft and is the principal director of Windows user experience and therefore he is in charge what becomes logo and what not. Therefore, his stance on the matter has due weight – unless you can prove that what is written there is not written by him. (Good luck with that!)
Third, Wikipedia is not governed by democracy. It is governed by Verifiability. (Commons is also like that.) It means even if millions of people say the image is fake, it would not matter unless they produce a proof. The burden of proof lies with the person who proposes or reinstates an allegation, which in this case, is you.
Finally, you can submit the PC Magazine and PC Advisor sources to WP:RSN for checking.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
May I quote what Wikipedia says in its first line about a logo
A logo is a graphic mark or emblem commonly used by commercial enterprises, organizations and even individuals to aid and promote instant public recognition.
Now Microsoft is one of the most important software producers in the world and Windows is its most recognized product and it works in an area where people who use computers are intensely interested. Is it within the bounds of possibility that it produced a logo for its first version of Windows and no-one bothered to notice it or plaster it in any of the numerous sites on the web about Microsoft windows?? Also that it used a completely different trademark for Microsoft that what Microsoft was using at the time?
Does that really seem at all likely to you? Dmcq (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have posted a message to that blog to ask them to either confirm it really was used as a Windows logo or to say there's been some mistake but I don't know what the chances of a response are, I'd guess they're fairly busy. Dmcq (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dmcq It does not seem likely to me at all. But since I only have your word for that, the unlikeliness does not lead me to fake; it leads me to "please prove it". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The search [1] is a google image search of the image from the Microsoft blog up to the year 2010. There's only 4 pages of references there. Or you can cut it down even more by a search up to 2009. It isn'tt just my word for it. The evidence is pretty clear. There's a couple of references there to years before 2010 but if you check them they actually talk about the Windows 8 launch. Dmcq (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You have successfully proved that Internet was not widespread in 1985. Beyond that, your search proves nothing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Well it's your funeral if you wish to ignore basic common sense. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Dmcq. I do not find it common sense to stand in the face of a Microsoft source (the authority for establishing genuineness) and call its product fake. Also common sense says taking the word of a total stranger without a proof is wrong. Submit proof for the objections your registered on the Microsoft source before expecting people to take you seriously. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Originals for the logo have now been found at
http://www.hartbrothers.com/dave/windows1dev.html
http://docs.com/8NAK
So as you said it is a valid logo. However I must still take issue with you for closing the debate early and for calling me a troll. That is unacceptable behaviour under WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL. Also it is clear from the discussion at commons that many others also found the logo problematic. This unpleasantness could have been avoided by you simply following proper procedure and letting the debate run a week, there was no urgency to close. As to your belief in the infallibility of a company about its own product Microsoft's business is software not history and in their official and non-blog page A history of Windows they show a picture captioned 'Bill Gates shows the newly-released Windows 3.0' whereas he is holding a 3.1 box which didn't come out till two years later. Dmcq (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
My interpretation of this mess was that Codename Lisa was remarkably calm and civil in face of having so much time wasted by multiple editors assuming that this was some attempt to defraud Wikipedia and Commons and to do anything at all (including your own extremely concerning threat to get Microsoft's legal department involved due to alleged trademark infringement) to get the image deleted. It is to be expected that you won't stoop to such egregious badgering in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, Dmcq. Are you referring to "trolling"? I never called you a "troll". These words are somewhat similar but their meaning is different. (Yes, calling someone "troll" is a personal attack but I didn't.) And by the way, WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL are Wikipedia policies and do not apply to Commons. (It was just a notice; I do happen to know there are Commons equivalents.)
And as for closing the debate, well, rest assured, I'll never close a debate involving you. But believe me, it would be much harder to see your discussion closed after 21 days because no admin sanctions delete because the free image is not what you'd like it to be. In the end, I am glad everything worked out.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Here is the deletion debate commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Windows_logo_and_watermark_-_1985.svg. I set it up on the 14th of February and you closed it on the 15th. Seven days at least is how long the policy on commons says such debates should stay unless there is a very good reason otherwise that it should be quickly closed.
to thumperward I did not threaten to involve Microsoft in commons. I pointed out that we should not have material which uses a company name and the ® mark without being sure about it. As to multiple editors badgering it would have been much better as I said to follow process and let the deletion debate get on with the business. Please do not attack other people as badgering when they have expressed valid concerns about content, deal with the concerns instead.
Here commons:User_talk:INeverCry#Troll_problem you say the edits were done by trolls and requested their reversion, the name change was done by Hindustanilanguage and the category change was done by me. In closing the deletion debate Codename Lisa said ' If you genuinely have strong evidence to believe the image may be a free derivative work, consider editing the image description page.'. I had strong evidence as evidenced by the debate on commons:File_talk:Windows_logo_and_watermark_-_1985.svg
I tried to search diligently for evidence of the logo and I wrote to various people connected with the logo but got no reply. And by the way can I also add a thanks here and acknowledgement of the sterling work by Nil Einne which actually resolved the problem properly. Dmcq (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dmcq. Well done on your diligence. Kudos on your fervor. But stop pestering me about a message to INeverCry that was not even about you, especially because pestering is a form of WP:PERSONAL and is not allowed in Wikipedia! Our dispute is resolved, so drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Windows logos unprotected

I'm glad to see that the issue seems to have been resolved. I just wanted to let you know that I've unprotected the logos on Commons. If anything else comes up, let me know on my Commons talk. INeverCry 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Messenger status

Hello Codename Lisa,

I hope you are having a lovely day. It would appear to be down to opinion. I would class it as remaining in use until users are transferred completely (excluding China). If you believe it should be classed as discontinued now, please make the change and revert my edit. Cloudbound (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Office 2013

How do you expect to include a citation for the version number that only is available within the Office product itself after Office update has done an update? Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Jimmy
My problem is that version numbers have more than often failed verification on computers to which I have access. Let's face it: Technical issues aside, I do believe that there is a phenomenon called "version number vandalism". So let's face it: No source, no version number. It is the rule here in Wikipedia. "2013" and "15.0" is enough.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, too bad, because it is often very useful to know the latest version number including the build number. Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. Sadly, you are right. It would have been a great world if there was no lies. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new message/s Hello, Codename Lisa. You have Windows multilingual support at Talk:Microsoft Windows's talk page. LittleBen (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilco. I added the page to my watchlist. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DR and user talk pages

I don't recall telling you that user talk pages don't "count" for required DR discussion and, indeed, it's unlikely that I would have done so. On the one hand, I do not believe that any DR volunteer should be put to the requirement of having to search for required discussion. If it's not where it's supposed to be, then the volunteer is justified in removing or denying the DR request, unless: (a) the person requesting DR or some other disputant responding to the request says that the discussion is somewhere else and gives enough information to find it without a prolonged search or (b) there is some discussion in the proper place, but not enough, and that discussion says that there's been additional discussion somewhere else and, once again, gives enough information to find it without a prolonged search. In other words, I don't think DR volunteers should ignore discussion simply because it's in the wrong place if they know about it, but neither should they be put to the task of routinely and always searching for it if it's not in the right place and there's no clear clue that it might be somewhere else. What do I do? Before closing or refusing a request for inadequate discussion, I usually look on the disputants' talk pages if the discussion isn't in the right place, but that's just me. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Dude, sometimes, you must just get the joke! Even if you don't, the "revenge" part and the fact that I actually posted no message body should have hinted you. Of course, if you had read it today, no wonder why you have forgotten the context. (The issue was one person denying Microsoft certification of genuineness.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
No, no, I'm sorry, I should have said that I got the joke, but just wanted to go on past it and let you know what I thought about discussion on user talk pages. I didn't mean to imply that I was upset, but I now see how it looks like I was. But I wasn't and am sorry for failing to make that fact clear. Blush.png Abashedly, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Norwegian Scientific Index

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Norwegian Scientific Index. 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. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox OS version

Hi what errors occurred with the codes so I can see if I can fix the codes in sandbox 142.4.216.61 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel. 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. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

CLR Version in .NET Framework version history

Our team was getting confused about what .NET Framework versions depend on which versions of the Common Language Runtime. Having the CLR version in the .NET Framework table version would be beneficial. Don't want it to be confusing by any means, so what would you recommend to make this clear? Just below the Common Language Runtime is discussed and defined. If this contained a sentence on the fact that various versions of the .NET Framework run on various versions of the CLR would it be clear enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahcoad (talkcontribs) 17:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Microsoft Windows

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Microsoft Windows. 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. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, RFC bot. Are you kidding me? I invoked that RFC! Get wise. Robotic regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Citation style

Some citations use the templates (like {{Cite web}}, but some don't. I'm not sure if that's what it means by "citation style", come to think of it...

And also I'm putting the pen thing back with a different source. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:NGC 6357

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:NGC 6357. 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. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

E-mail issue

What exactly are you talking about? I have never sent you a single e-mail. I would suggest you check if the e-mail actually came from Wikipedia itself (some sort of notification, perhaps?). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It has the look of a Wikipedia email coming from you, dated 25 November 2012. Emails are very easy to fake (unless digitally signed) but I never thought this might be the case with this email because who would do that, why would do that and is it worth his or her trouble? Now, it is possible that you have sent and have forgotten. You can consult a 'crat in serious cases but this one can be simply ignored. I'll just remember your denial and ignore the email. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
If you consider the e-mail unimportant, I can ignore it too. Just to confirm, though: I definitely did not send it, or any other e-mails, to you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing discussion of Template:Notability

Why did you close the template for discussion of Template:Notability, even though there was an overwhelmingly majority for support there still was a discussion active. JayJayWhat did I do? 00:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am just curious why you closed an active debate, namely this one yet earlier and more certain discussions go unclosed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like two of use posted here simultaneously. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Still, a NAC closure is open to oversight. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:NAC "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question.". Does this apply? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. It appears that is my decision to make and I made it, and as I said earlier, you have the right to be dissatisfied with it. In that case, just do it. You have my blessing too. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the closure, per the above and Template talk:Notability#Please remove TFD header. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
If you're going to close a discussion, be sure to remove the deletion tag from the nominated page. RNealK (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
She wasn't able to remove the deletion tag from the template, because she isn't a admin and the template if fully protected. JayJayWhat did I do? 15:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tornado preparedness

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tornado preparedness. 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. RFC bot (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reboot (computing), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sebastopol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Water fluoridation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation. 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. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My edit to Microsoft Office 2013

Hi. Please look carefully what I did. I didn't delete any text, merely replaced the template, since the old one shows up a deletion notice and really wasn't that necessary in the context. StasMalyga (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant). 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. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

wp:drn case

What I saw in looking at the history of your dispute was some editors making fairly clear assertions of bad faith, and you making more subtle assertions of bad faith. That you can compose your insults cleverly does not render them insults any less. When you respond to these assertions with other assertions (or initiate them yourself), you make things about behavior rather than content. It seems also that you might benefit from a perusal of WP:ENEMY, if you have not looked at it recently. There is insistence on policy that helps produce consensus, and then there is insistence on policy that prevents it. Yours seemed to me a bit more of the latter than the former. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 02:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello.
I understand that that I have written what you regard as "subtle insult" which I must cease. Just for clarification, may I request for one or two examples?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"yet (user) has so far done very little cooperation." etc.
"It seems you have missed the point."
"we do not write "People of the world, tremble in horror and shriek! Office licensing terms has changed! Who knows what is changing. This world is going to hell!""
"fuss, fan-fights and FUD-pushing."
"I had zero hope of you showing up."
and this little gem:
"no offense, you will FAIL with capital F. I hope you will excuse me, but you don't have the skills or tolerance."
Certainly there are other editors who are more aggressive than you. I do not mean to compare you to other editors. However, if you are thinking about escalating things I think you may want to be more mindful of how some of your statements are perceived. Again, if you havent already you may want to look briefly at WP:CONCEDE and WP:DEADHORSE. In this particular case, the fact that things changed so dramatically could be seen as an opportunity to re-establish useful dialog and try and approach consensus. Instead, not all of the issues were addressed, so insisting that they are only partially resolved (whether they are or not) comes off as intransigence.
obviously, these are just my personal judgements and suggestions, and do not carry any sort of weight. you asked is all. I hope my input is constructive for you. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 02:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again
It has always been a headache for me: How am I supposed to tell someone that he or she has misunderstood me, he or she lacks the skill to do a certain thing or he or she is in danger without making them feel offended? Since I am the last person in my family to start editing Wikipedia, I occasionally have the advices of my siblings who break their rule of not discussing Wikipedia with me. They say:

Try your best to be polite, but if one person took insult, do not blame yourself: Sometimes you are not a factor in their taking insult.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
My rule of thumb is, unless i have pretty extensive and clear evidence that other party(s) are being disingenuous, I always first assume that it is my own failure at conveying my ideas, rather than a misunderstanding on the part of the other person. Your family's advice is good, but imho applicable mainly much later in an interaction, after i have attempted to figure out what part of what i said was unclear. Saying "you have misunderstood me" (though i have certainly done it) implies knowledge about someone else that i do not have, and it puts the failure on them rather than myself. Some people will, naturally, take offense at that. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. Most of the times, I follow an even better rule of thumb: I do not comment on person at all; instead of saying "you took me wrong; I never meant X is Y", I simply say "X is Y" or "I agree that X is Z; X is Z and Y, don't you agree?" However, never before have I been pushed to my limits. I did predict that in such a discussion, I might commit such errors (owing to being my first time) and even asked a certain user to comment on me or advise me before too late. (I should have asked you.)
So, what's going to be? Starting an RFC with regard to new changes? Or MedCom? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
There are any number of options. I think the ones you should consider first are trying again to work things out on the talk page, or taking a few days to give yourself a break first. I have not yet had reason to push a conflict past the RfC or DRN stage, and it doesn't really feel to me like yours is more serious based on what i see. It's possible you just need some fresh eyes and a renewed desire to compromise. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 05:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Microsoft Office

Permission to revert to this jackass? Fleet Command (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fleet Command. Please don't. An edit war over a couple of links should be avoided. Let him have his precious links. Never bring yourself down to his level. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Computus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Computus. 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. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather. 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. RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Migraine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Migraine. 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. RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Codename Lisa; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

AsOf in Template:Infobox_software

I added AsOf to that template because this parameter lets Wikipedia editors know when a given software infobox has been updated.

The issue is this: My little open source project, MaraDNS, has issues with its template not being up to date. For example, in January of 2013, the article claimed that MaraDNS 2.0.04 was the most recent version—even though the most recent version was 2.0.06 or 2.0.07—the data was over a year out of date.

I finally had to take the reins myself and update the article myself, even though there are WP:COI issues with doing so, as one editor pointed out to me (by saying that “if your software is notable then someone will come along and update it”).

With crowdsourced data, you sometimes get what you didn’t pay for. In this case, it’s been a recurring source of frustration with me that the MaraDNS article isn’t updated when I make a new MaraDNS release...while MaraDNS is notable enough to have a Wiki article (see, for example [2]), the article is neglected and outdated.

Yeah, it’s nice that something I dedicated a decade to is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but it’s a little sad that it never caught on to the point third parties maintain its Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Map projection

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Map projection. 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. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Feedback: Visited the discussion. The RFC seems pointless. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:ViperSnake151

Messages merged

Please leave it alone. If ViperSnake wants to remove the templates, they can do so. Edit-warring with Dogmaticeclectic serves no purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked per your report at WP:AN3. Please be careful to avoid the appearance of edit warring yourself though, even if other parties are doing so. Consider adhering to WP:BRD in disputes. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bbb23. Hello, Mark
I hear you both and I will do as you say. I confess that your responses came as a slight surprise to me but I spent some time thinking about it. It appears you are right.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

References and notability

Hi, I see that you've removed my placement of a notability tag on PocketVNC, writing that 'The article already has an Unreferenced tag; it does not need a tag that says "current sources not good enough" '. Notability and referencing are not the same, as you will find on Wikipedia:Notability. If a user, for instance, adds a number of references from the maker of the product, this will justify the removal of the unreferenced tag, but not justify the removal of the notability tag. I leave both tags because I typically bring articles that have been tagged for notability for 6+ months to articles for deletion, as long as the references are still missing, or exist but aren't in line with the notability guideline. Dialectric (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello
It appears you are concerned that the user who adds source may not add a good enough source. So, you put notability tag to warn him? Well, it seems to me that if you go with this logic you should also be equally concerned that he or she does not add reliable sources, sufficient number of citations, or style-compliant sources either. So, why not go ahead and add {{Refimprove}}, {{Secondary}}, {{Citation style}}, {{linkrot}} and other too? In fact, I find it analogous to adding the following sentence to the profile of a dead person: "This person is unfit to work in the Air Force."
IMHO, one must resist the temptation to add tag for a problem that as of yet does not exist. Please WP:TAGBOMBING.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Debito Arudou SCAM

Hello there, the Debito Arudou page DOES NOT entirely comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, as article. The article was in fact, written by Debito Arudou. A fast search with Google can prove that Debito has never been shown or talked about in any national/international News Broadcast Service. All information about Debito come from internet Users and/or his website itself. A book, sold on Amazon doesn't prove anything about Debito, since ANYONE can actually sell books on Amazon and create internet pages about themselves. The page is obviously a self-promoting page and should be removed entirely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.135.59.209 (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, what i'm saying is that the page shouldn't be on Wikipedia AT ALL. Who's Debito? Can you find me anything about him on CNN or BBC... ar any respected newspaper? He works for JapanTimes ( which has nothing to do with The New York Times) ... as freelancer... everyone can't. It's free.
-User100-
ps.: It's not about quality here... is about BEING AN ARTICLE THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO ANYONE AND HAS NOT FOUNDATION!!!
Look at the notes, those links are all from JapanTimes, for which he writes as UNPAID FREELANCER... things that anyone can do... and from his own website. Is this what Wikipedia is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.135.59.209 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia. 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. RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tbullet-n

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Tbullet-n has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 13:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of disk cloning software

Hi, I'm not an expert in wikipedia, but occassionally i help people in computer related things and one of the pages I often reference people to is this page -- I hope you don't mind if I can re-alphabetize the first column (i did not so long ago and noticed your contributions)
Talk:Comparison of disk cloning software#Inaccuracies & Proposal
I made a proposal entry that it's prevalent problem on certain inaccuracies.. I think the table on that page should be restructured.
Swestlake (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows

I was surprised to see you change past tense to present for old versions of Windows that are obsolete—no longer sold, and no longer supported. Past tense is used for things that obsolete—no longer produced/supported; Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud came to mind as an example. Even if you could obtain a copy of Windows 3.0, it'd probably be almost impossible to find hardware that it could be installed on. For all intents and purposes, it no longer exists; it's past tense. "Water flows downhill" is an example of a "universal fact" that is not likely to become obsolete. LittleBen (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Present tense is used to state facts that are always correct. The sentence "Windows 3.1 was an operating system" is wrong because Windows 3.1 is still an operating system; pass of time or discontinuation did not turn it into a video game or anything else. "Windows 3.1 ran on i386 computers" is wrong because it still runs on i386. Pass of time or discontinuation does not make it run on any different computer.
That said, Other stuff exists is never a good reason. If there are other errors in Wikipedia, that only means there are more fixing to do.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Windows 3.0 is no longer a manufactured, sold, and supported operating system, just as the Apple II, PC/XT, PC/AT is no longer a manufactured, sold, and supported computer, and the Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud is no longer a manufactured, sold, and supported car. LittleBen (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So what? It is still an operating system and it still runs on i386 or i486 computers. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The operating system and the 8086, 80286, i386, or i486 computers virtually no longer exist, they are obsolete, so we are talking about what they used to be—past tense—not what they are now. They are like the coal-fired steam engines of computing. Like OS/360 and VAX. Six of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World no longer exist, they are past tense. LittleBen (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. That is your personal assumption and it is completely wrong. But apart from that, so what if they didn't exist? The sentence "Windows 3.1 is an operating system" is changed into "Windows 3.1 is an operating system that no longer exists". But it is still an operating system, not a dish washer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd understand "is" to mean "is a (current/popular)", and "was" to mean "used to be"—whether it's a car model, computer model, or OS. Maybe I should ask other opinions at MOS. LittleBen (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Question posted here. Most of the "owners" of the MOS seem to have self-destructed, so I'm not sure if I'll get any answers. LittleBen (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be a very clear consensus yet. My personal position is "be kind to dumb users": a WP user, who has never heard of something before, wants to know if it is still current—or is it something that would probably never be encountered in the current-day real world, and so is only of historic interest. Thus the distinction between "is" and "was" is useful and helpful. LittleBen (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Ben. According to English Grammar In Use, "We use the present simple to talk about things in general. We are not thinking only about now. We use it to say that something happens all the time or repeatedly, or that something is true in general. It is not important whether the action is happening at the time of speaking." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I couldn't find anything about tense in either the latest Microsoft MOS (4th) or Chicago 15th (couldn't locate my copy of 16th), but—just as people are referred to in the past tense after they die—I think that OSes and software should also be referred to in the past tense after their EOL. While Windows 3.1 might have been considered to be an Operating System in its time, there is little chance of anybody trying to launch something like Windows 3.1—that offers no protection against programs clobbering one another, and no protection between users—and trying to pass it off as an operating system suitable for use on a shared computer today. Expectations have changed. Likewise, an operating system that could run only paper tape jobs—or even just card reader batch jobs—would not be considered an acceptable OS today. I think EOS or EOL are simple criteria for separating "live" software from "dead" software.
I'd be flexible about exceptions, though—apparently there are OS/360 programs that companies spent huge amounts of money on, and they can be used for free with OS/360 emulation today. Some Atari games are still used in emulation. Computer languages (like COBOL) are surely also an exception; they don't have a clearly-defined EOL—as they don't die, they only fade away. Some insurance companies prefer to patch legacy COBOL programs rather than rewrite them, even though few programmers are fluent in COBOL today. Music, musicals, and plays are examples of things that don't die—because there is always a chance that people will perform them, regardless of their age. But versions of MS Office that are past their EOS are not going to be used because of security and OS compatibility concerns—and because secure and up-to-date near-clones like OpenOffice or LibreOffice are free.
BTW, it seems that there really was a Windows 3.0 (I think that the WP article says that the series started with 3.1). Best regards  LittleBen (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Ben. Why would you look into a manual of style for a grammar issue? Look inside a grammar book! And you are talking applying a case "exception" (your own word) to another case? "Exceptions" are not applied. They are left well alone. (Or else they would have not been laws, not exceptions.) And I strongly disagree with apply Atheists lingo to state verbs for operating systems that have reached EOL. What you are proposing is wrong × wrong × wrong. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Software license status is a similar can of worms to support status: Software whose license is switched (from Open Source to proprietary or vice versa) is no longer considered to currently have its original license: its license status has changed. This sort of status change is surely little different from the status change from supported to EOS or EOL=dead. LittleBen (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Instead of filling up your user talk page, why don't we move the discussion to Talk:Microsoft Windows#Present tense or past tense for EOL .28End-Of-Life.29 software.3F and get some WP:3Os? LittleBen (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)