User talk:Modernponderer

Dogmaticeclectic, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Dogmaticeclectic! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of features removed in Windows XP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Domain, NIC, DLC, Registry and Stub

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The Dating Guy

I'm not an administrator any longer so I don't have access to deleted articles and can't help you, sorry. BigDom (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to User:Brightify/Jimmy Two-Shoes, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to User:Brightify/Jimmy Two-Shoes has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Blanking pages

They are someone else's sandbox. Work in progress. Don't blank. Jim1138 (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Brightify/Detentionaire with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Blanking pages

They are not stale. Work was done last month. Jim1138 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Features removed articles

The 'Features removed' series for Vista/7/8 were written from point of where there has been a significant functionality loss. Just a change like "Line up icons" changed to "Align to Grid" doesn't count IMHO as significant functionality loss. Others like Deluxe CD Player, Imaging etc certainly do. Or why would anyone not want to show icons using all possible colors? Do I propose you do not count every little change made as a "removed feature" but only put those features which are substantial and major. Another example "Minimize All Windows" was just renamed to "Show the Desktop". Kernel-mode printer drivers are still supported. OS/2 subsystem is really obsolete. Very few features are substantial. You can't count every change as removed feature. Just my opinion. - xpclient ^Talk 22:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• I created the List of features removed in Windows XP article to bring some semblance of WP:NPOV to the series, and knowing that you are by far the most vocal proponent of the existing articles, I was expecting some sort of reply like this - but not for you to use the "every little change" argument. The number of such "little" removed features in the Vista and 7 articles is too high for me to even bother counting it. Also, I could classify quite a few features in the Vista and 7 articles as obsolete.

As for your more specific points:

• The Line Up Icons/Align to Grid change is very carefully explained in the article.
• There are performance-related reasons to disable showing icons using all possible colors - just as you can adjust Performance Options to disable certain effects. The other reason I included this is the "by design" wording in the MSKB article - quite possibly the earliest existing example of it.
• Minimize all windows was not renamed to Show the desktop. This is clear if you note that Windows 2000 included both. The features are different because the first one actually minimizes all the windows, while the second one just allows you to view the desktop without minimizing them. It's why you don't get the window restore animation when you click on a taskbar button after using Show the desktop.
• The kernel-mode printer drivers change is also carefully explained in the article.

Hmm. Fair enough. I realize the finer differences between Line up icons vs..., icon color issue, Show desktop vs.., You are free to reinstate the content I removed. I will not remove it again. :) Nice job btw on the article. Your knowledge seems to exceed the xpclient. :P - xpclient ^Talk 23:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Teletoon

I reverted your edits because you were causing the template to make a redlink (i.e., nonexistant) category. Your edits caused 71 articles to be in a category that didn't exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Marcus Qwertyus. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Windows Mail without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Content without source...

Hello, Dogmaticeclectic

In Wikipedia, contents without source may be challenged or deleted. Editors may choose to use template {{Citation needed}} when the issue is not grave and when they wish to be polite. But there is absolutely not mandate to indulge a contributor and his unreferenced contribution with this template. In fact, the burden of the source is on the contributor. It is completely acceptable to delete unreferenced contents, especially in serious cases like a Windows article that already plagued with said problem.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again

I investigated a little bit and found sources that actually say you are wrong. Windows Media Player 10 was part of Service Pack 2 for Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP x64 and was never shipped with Windows XP x64. I have included my sources in the article talk page.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Mahjong Titans 7.png

Please stop "size warring" over this image. To be suitable under fair use, the image must not be any bigger than absolutely necessary. I have reverted your change. If you continue to "size war" here, I will protect the image and block your account. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at File:Mahjong Titans 7.png. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Futz! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Futz! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futz! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Patchy1 02:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your philoshopy

Hey, Dogmaticeclectic. Welcome to Wikipedia.

I read your user page and I see you have written: My editing philosophy can be summarized as WP:IAR. So, I am here to give you a warning: The first and most important factor in Wikipedia for deciding whether to break or to adhere to a rule is whether or not it makes you more popular.

WP:IAR says:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

But somehow, a lot of people think IAR says:

If a rule prevents you from having your way in Wikipedia or annoying others, ignore it.

Without millions of friends and a reputation of lovable person, life can be intolerable in Wikipedia.

Fleet Command (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Modernponderer. You have new messages at Talk:Futz!.
Message added 00:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Patchy1 00:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Fugget About It (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Danny Smith and Richard Weston

Spliced (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tim Burns and Richard Elliott

Detentionaire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Johnston

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Silverwing (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Dobson and Richard Newman (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) 11:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WinSxS and XP

Which source exactly do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.16.72 (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I know, Side-by-side component sharing (codenamed "Fusion") wasn't fully complete in Windows 98 and Windows 2000. These operating systems allowed loading a private version of the DLL if it was placed in the application's folder, instead of the system directory. This requires the developer to place the private DLL in the app's directory. (Fusion 1.0). What Windows XP introduces is a centralized store called WinSxS (Fusion 2) for versioned side-by-side components, and also COM+ and .NET support for Fusion. COM+ 2.0, COM classic, and Win32 components (C Runtime, GDI+, Common Controls all now have an Activation Context API. An elaborate system of manifests and the assembly version number are used by the OS PE loader to determine the correct binding of assembly versions to applications. As such Fusion was rolled out gradually across Windows releases but it really bore fruition in Windows XP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.16.72 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it again but this time clarified the difference between side-by-side component sharing by globally registered private DLLs in each app's directory vs side-by-side assemblies used to describe shared DLLs in a central folder without using the registry. :)

Hello, Dogmaticeclectic

I think we have already covered this before but you seem to have forgotten: In Wikipedia, everything needs a source. Edits not backed up by a source may be contested or reverted. (This holds true even if you are right.) You are removing well-sourced information from articles without supplying a source of your own or discussing it in talk pages in spite of the fact that your action is previously contested. Please note that there is no second R in WP:BRD.

Now, why don't you start making amends right now? Throw me a few clues here and I will help you patch things up. How about it?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

So, I looked at DLL Hell#Running conflicting DLLs simultaneously (as the edit summary of your revert says) and it seems WinSxS really existed, is meant to help alleviate DLL Hell issues and you agree with it. But I am still at a loss: If you agree with it, why did you delete it from Windows XP article?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As clearly stated both at the source and in the section, this feature was already included in Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows 2000. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

You are being silent, so I went ahead and added only changes to WinSxS in Windows XP. Hope that's okay with you.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

BBC Kids (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to K9, Silverwing, Trapped, Minuscule and Sorcerer's Apprentice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Windows XP

Instead of constantly reverting other users, which is the very essence of edit-warring, please discuss the changes at the article's talk page. Your talk page is really not an appropriate place for this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8

Hi.

First, you do know that Windows 8 cannot run 16-bit device drivers, right? Hence the difference between "program" and "application".

And in case you have not studied our verifiability policy, please do. Statements without a source may be removed.

Finally, when someone says something that is already said (in a better shape) in the next paragraph, it is better to remove it.

And by the way, you seem to like to hit revert button without actually verifying the merit. Frankly, if you do it again, I will report you to WP:ANI.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Dogmaticeclectic

I do not normally comment on contributors unless necessary; and right now, I think it is necessary. Wikipedia is a place that runs on team work and consensus is a critical part of it. However, I am afraid you are not a team worker at all because you – for whatever reason – do not communicate and cooperate with your fellow team workers.

Please discuss with your fellow Wikipedians, especially when they come to you and ask "what is the problem?" When someone disputes an edit (not just your edit), cease all editing activities in that regard and discuss it. Discussion is the key. And remember: Always discuss the content, never the contributor. Nothing good results from hostility.

In fact, why don't you start with our Windows 8 problem? I am ready to listen. Given all above, why do you still think the edit is sanctioned?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Windows 8. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Fleet Command (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at User talk:FleetCommand shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GB fan 19:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Let me be more clear: Do not edit his user page. If you continue this silly edit war, you will be blocked. Your view of "policy" on that issue is not shared by everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Product activation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Product activation

A complaint about your edits has been filed at WP:AN3#User:Coin Operation and User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: ). It looks to me that you've been edit warring to restore a section to the article which has had no sources sine 2009. Can you say whether you have any plan to provide sources in the future? You can respond at the noticeboard if you wish. Per WP:V, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the key phrase here is 'directly supporting.' It is within your power to link the sources more carefully to the statements that need verification. You are already at three reverts. If you do another simple revert you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Office shortcuts

Hi. I've undone your CSD tags on Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000 and Office XP as I believe all four of these shorthand terms are queries that a user is likely to enter in the "search" bar, and attempting to speedy delete them would be controversial (see WP:RFD#KEEP). If you want to contest this, you should list them at Redirects for discussion instead. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm undoing your reverts because your reasoning is invalid - the redirects aren't simply being deleted but are having the articles moved over them. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Where is the discussion in which you reached this consensus? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? Per WP:POLL, you haven't provided a valid reason not to delete the redirects. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, you haven't provided a valid reason to delete the redirects. Like I said, go to RFD and get a consensus. And WP:POLL is an essay saying you should discuss issues rather than just blindly vote on them - since we're not voting here, a link to that essay makes no sense in this context. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinions regarding such matters, regardless of the context, are basically worthless without valid reasoning to back them up. That's why I provided the link to WP:POLL.

Also, I clearly explained why this has nothing to do with WP:RFD. The fact that you cannot even suggest the correct venue to attempt to obtain consensus for this issue shows that you do not at all understand what I am trying to accomplish. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing you have said is "the redirects aren't simply being deleted but are having the articles moved over them." What do mean "moved over?" If you want to transfer content from one article to another (eg: Fizz Buzz vs Bizz Buzz), just be bold and do it. Anyway, an admin will review these CSD tags in due course. You're right about one thing - I haven't a clue what you're trying to accomplish. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you need to read WP:MOVE then - especially WP:MOVE#Moving over a redirect. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read WP:MOVE, and, per the instructions in WP:MOVE#Before moving a page, could you show me the relevant discussion in Requested moves that you created? I note that Talk:File_Explorer_(Windows)#Requested_move suggests moves such as these are not, in fact, uncontroversial. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The move requests (as opposed to the redirect deletion requests) have not yet been contested by a single editor. I thus see no reason to list them at WP:RM. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm contesting them! I think Microsoft Office XP is a correct name that allows distinguishing over other software called "Office", such as Corel WordPerfect Office or Office suite, while the abbreviation is acceptable as a redirect as a more convenient search term. I also notice that the Manual of style recommendations for title changes discourage the renaming of established articles - some of these redirects have existed for nearly a decade. That's reason enough to file a RM for this lot. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• You know that Ritchie333 is disputing this, and you know you are at WP:AN3 in two cases, yet you revert his reverts of your move. I would suggest not digging your hole any deeper, or an admin may decide to block you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin comment: I have declined your WP:CSD#G6 move proposals because I don't believe they are uncontroversial. Frankly, from the point of view of an admin who monitors Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, these G6 moves look like all-too-frequent attempts I've seen lately from other editors to circumvent the WP:RM process. I commend you for undoing your related moves in preparation for a discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Family

Do you have any sources showing Family has changed its name to "Family Channel"?  █ EMARSEE 02:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've now added a source to Family Channel (and another one to Disney Junior (English Canada)). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD

Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:BRD allow for simply reverting an edit. However for the original "bold" editor to simply restore his or her edit is considered edit-warring. One option is to improve the text to address the reverter's concerns, perhaps by strengthening references. Another is to start a discussion on the article talk page. Jeh (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not "simply restore" my edit - I added a WP:RS that directly supports my claim. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the first two times time, you didn't, you simply restored your previous edit. However, you did do the right thing eventually.

Incidentally: MS's claim of 2003-ness was pretty specious; I was running those versions and they showed very, very little of what would be in Server 2003. So I do like your wording, "considered part of the Server 2003 family". Jeh (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the only edit I had made at the time since you mentioned WP:BRD. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And I was referring to the simple revert you made before I mentioned WP:BRD. The fact that you later posted a non-revert with a reference that addressed my concern is good, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't have mentioned BRD to you. Jeh (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not following the BRD cycle, while not necessarily violating 3RR, is something you've done repeatedly in the past. You could keep out of this trouble by self-imposing a voluntary 1RR restriction. --Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Spliced

Did you even check your work? Most of the links were pointing to the wrong people. Doug Murphy for one. It's bad to have an article linking to the wrong person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• ETA: I didn't realize I accidentally removed some content as well. That I've fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• You still added a link to the dab page Richard Elliott. Please don't link to disambiguation pages from articles as it just confuses readers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Status bar edit war

What's up with this edit war? Are you not getting it? Do you not understand what a status bar is in Explorer? The one you enable from View menu. It's not the disk free space you see in Web View. What has Web View got to do to with it. Do this: Insert a removable drive or browse to a network share (not mapped drive). Open Windows Explorer (not My Computer) but Explorer. (The difference is that Explorer has the navigation pane enabled). If the navigation pane (also called folder pane) is not enabled, turn it on from pressing the Folders button on the toolbar. On Windows 2000 (and Me) which shares the Windows 2000 shell, Disk Free space of the removable drive or drive on which the network share is located is listed in the status bar just below where the folders list ends. This disk free space is not in XP for removable drives and network shares (or even My Documents) even after "Folders" button is clicked. This is shown in Windows 2000. Is it so hard to understand? How can anyone be so dumb? - 120.63.7.239 (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I tested this in Windows 2000 with a removable drive, and it worked the exact same way as in Windows XP - the removable drive's space information was not displayed in the status bar, unlike for the hard drive and optical drive. You are correct, though, about the difference in the My Documents folder.

By the way, I'd like to remind you about WP:CIVIL. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

After even more investigation, I finally understood what you meant. The crucial part of your explanation that was missing was "when browsing through" as written in the now-corrected version of the article. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the rage. I have a bad temper. Couldn't control it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.42.108 (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Repost of The Dating Guy

A tag has been placed on The Dating Guy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Silverseren^C 08:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert warring

Please for the love of Wikipedia, listen to what people are saying on the AfD page! Reverting to "your" version of the page isn't helping anything out and all you're doing is getting into a revert war that won't save the page in the least. None of the sources are usable. Multiple editors have told you that and all you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot as far as editing in general goes. The sources are redundant and unusable. No amount of edit warring or going "nuh uh" will change that. All it's doing is just kind of making the article look worse in the long run. I don't think that the Dating Guy article has a chance of survival, but as someone who has taken part in multiple AfDs over the years, I can vouch that editors are more likely to vote "delete" when they look at an article and see that it's not well put together, uses bare URLs, and has multiple sources that are unreliable and redundant. They're also going to assume that you're not interested in improving the page as much as you're trying to keep "your" version of the article and that you're not willing to work with others.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• And fair warning. If you keep reverting I'll have to bring this up to one of the admins as a revert war in progress.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Windows 7

• You're right, I'm wrong: I've no idea why I thought that I should re-do that edit, I had even looked at it... *trouts self* Lukeno94 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't Carl Squared aired in the USA?, It has to air on Animania HD GeorgeOfThePurpleBananas (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Family Channel, Inc.

There is no reason why we should mention the licensee of Family in the lede of the article. As it currently stands, the owner of the station, Astral Media is already stated. As per the standards set by the other Canadian television articles, mentioning the owner of the station is sufficient; we do not mention the licensee unless the station is owned by two or more parties (e.g. TSN). As such, there is no difference between Astral Media and the licensee of the station, The Family Channel, Inc. So far, you have failed to provide a good reason - (i.e. "No reason" doesn't cut it) - as to why it should stay in the lede.  █ EMARSEE 18:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Microsoft Office 2013".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 11:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC) WP:GAME - Only warning I really don't know what your problem is with respect to The Dating Guy but you're close to getting blocked for WP:GAMEing the system. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_82#The_Dating_Guy Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 11 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy (2nd nomination) User_talk:Toddst1#Request_to_create_redirect_at_The_Dating_Guy The page was salted to prevent recreation by a user like you. If you continue to try to WP:FORUMSHOP or any other nonsense relating to lobbying to have this article recreated, you will be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC) DRN case Hello Dogmaticecletic, the DRN case that you are involved in has now been opened. We need your participation to be able to resolve the dispute. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 17:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Microsoft Office 2013 Let's try this again. When an uninvolved editor at WP:DRN suggests that you establish consensus for the edits you've made before you make the edits again, you best move is either pointing out where consensus had been established (at which point I would have cheerfully self-reverted) or, alternatively, establishing consensus. Putting the edits back in immediately without any further discussion gives the impression that you're not all that concerned about consensus. I don't think that was the impression you were trying to make. So, would you please self-revert and describe the changes you want to make at WP:DRN. If you're in a real hurry you can add a note saying that based on previous discussion you think these changes are uncontroversial, but if you're wrong then you're ok with anyone reverting them. Thanks, Garamond Lethet c 21:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Re: Office 2013 I do not see consensus on the page, all I see is debate. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Dogmatic, it is high time you stopped refusing to get the point. Your message in User talk:ViperSnake151 was an instance of personal attack. Please stop. We are not enemy. Instead of reverting and then thinking an excuse for doing so, talk to us. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC) March 2013 Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Microsoft Office 2013. Thank you. The history of the assertions you've made (such as asserting that any change requires consensus) can be interpreted as assumptions of bad faith that hinder the editing process ViperSnake151  Talk  20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Hello, Dogmaticelectic. I take issues with your reverting behavior. For example, the hidden link which does not appear anyway? Why do you revert that? At least think before mass-revering things and assuming bad faith. Talk to your friends and ask them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Windows 8. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Windows 8 does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! ViperSnake151  Talk  14:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Windows 8 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. This is not the first time this has happened. Please stop reverting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Mark Arsten (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Modernponderer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Pointless blocks - since the article in question is now fully protected - are a violation of Wikipedia's blocking policy: blocks should be preventative, not punitive. Given that the blocking administrator has not blocked the user who reported me for edit warring - including edit warring at the article in question - I will almost certainly pursue a WP:ADMINABUSE case about this if I am not unblocked (unblocked before my block expires, of course). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: You do not address the reason you were blocked. Instead, you blame others and you threaten retaliation ("Do not threaten or imply retaliation"). Further requests of this sort will be considered abusive. Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. :Casting aspersions makes admins less likely to unblock you. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 23:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, also, you were clearly edit warring across numerous pages, including Microsoft Office 2013, Windows 8, and User talk:ViperSnake151. Not all of these pages have been protected. You have received many warnings not to edit war, as this page records. Also, note that after a second look at the situation I have warned the other two users in the dispute to avoid edit warring, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Yet the user who reported me continued to edit the page Microsoft Office 365 after I was blocked - including at least partially reverting one edit of mine... More importantly, significant discretion is expected of administrators in cases where a user has repeatedly reported others for edit warring, since this could easily point to edit warring on the part of the reporting user - there is another case opened by the same user (currently) on the same page! The result of that case was essentially equivalent to a block as far as the article was concerned: the article was semi-protected, and since the user reported in that case was unregistered, the reporting user was essentially able to edit the page freely (until I stepped in, of course). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Modernponderer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The administrator who reviewed my unblock request above was involved in this issue in multiple ways, including being the very administrator in the semi-protection case I described above and, more importantly, discussing my edits to one of the pages mentioned above at another user's talk page. Per WP:APPEAL: "Usually if it's a clear cut case any uninvolved (independent) administrator will make a decision." I would therefore request that an uninvolved (independent) administrator re-evaluate my appeal above. Additionally, I strongly disagree with the administrator in question's interpretation of WP:GAB (in all cases discussed above). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: OK. I'm uninvolved and I completely agree with the above review. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Just so it's clear, I have never been WP:INVOLVED within the meaning of the policy. I semi-protected the article and didn't even know who you were at the time. Although you are unclear about the talk page, I'm assuming you mean this edit where I asked Lisa to stop removing the templates you were putting on ViperSnake's talk page. Not only was I acting administratively, what I was saying was, if anything, favorable to you as she was removing your templated warnings. Also, the way I got there was not through you; I have ViperSnake on my watchlist. That said, another admin will review your second request as it is unusual for the same admin to review more than one request from a blocked user.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC) As I clearly stated, I was referring to the WP:APPEAL definition of an involved administrator. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC) There is no definition in the guideline; there is, however, a definition (wikilink) in the policy, and it is the one I used. See here. I may fix that inconsistency and wikilink uninvolved in the guideline to match the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC) I suppose it's not as important now, but since you responded: it's quite clear to me that the (partially implied) definition of an involved administrator being used at WP:APPEAL is significantly different. Notice that the next sentence after the one I quoted is as follows: "The blocking administrator may be consulted for their comments on your request (this is a common courtesy)." In other words, this page specifically excludes the blocking administrator from being deemed uninvolved - something that using the other definition would not do (since blocking is merely an administrative, not editing, action). Additionally, notice that the word "independent(ly)" is used at both WP:APPEAL and WP:BLOCK but not WP:INVOLVED. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Right, ideally Mark Arsten shouldn't have been the one to review your appeal since we want appeals to be independently assessed. Fortunately he was not anyway, Bbb23 was and Bbb23 wasn't the one who blocked you. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Talking to you Hi Dogmaticeclectic, first it looks like you've taken a break for the last hour or so, my compliments to you for that. I know it can be very difficult to walk away from a situation that you feel strongly about. Consensus on the AN/I thread appears to be to issue a final warning, so that's what I wanted to do - but I wanted to actually try to talk to you as well. I see that you've only been around for 5 or so months - and I'll be the first to admit that learning to fit in with the Wikipedia community is not always an easy task. I've been here for years, and I still learn things on a daily basis on how to work with the people here. A couple things to keep in mind here: 1.) There are going to be times that one person really is "right" about something, but that a consensus and/or majority of people looking at the same situation are going to come to a different conclusion than "the one". The way our community has developed over time is to simply accept this consensus until such time as it changes. It simply saves a lot of time, aggravation, and argument in the long run. This works 99.9% of the time, and really has served the project well over the years. Another thing to consider is 2.) - When you're reading a policy, don't just look at the words, but rather try to understand the whole concept and spirit of the policies and guidelines as they were intended. It's often easy to pick out a phrase, sentence, or whole paragraph which will support a particular point of view, but it's the WHOLE understanding of these things that really counts. We want to see new editors join us, but it really is a learning experience too. There are plenty of people who work very hard to help inexperienced editors with problems, and sometimes it's just a matter of asking the right question of the right person or group. Digging in your heels and blaming others is never going to go well here - the community has seen a large number of people come and go over the years who simply don't fit into our project; not through any fault of their own, but rather it's just not a good match in the end. I hope you'll stick around, learn, adapt, adjust, and experience how enjoyable the project can be when you/I/we/they collaborate to improve an article, project, or idea. Being willing to step away from a problem is a HUGE first step, and I compliment you for that. Just please try to remember to consider the things people try to tell you. We're not trying to be mean, we're simply trying to explain how our project works. I'm not going to bother with any fancy templates with big red stop signs screaming "STOP", I can see from your talk page that you've seen what they look like. Just remember to relax, join in, listen, share your thoughts, and work with us - and you'll do fine. I'd really hate to see you get blocked again, and actually most folks don't like to see it either. Best of luck, and hopefully nobody will have to come back and take any further action in restricting your abilities here. — Ched :  ?  21:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)