User talk:FleetCommand

Apology

So, a while back you said some words against AussieLegend that I found to be objectionable, because they showed up suddenly in my watchlist, I thought them mean-spirited, passive-aggressive, and a variety of other this-and-thats that are probably no longer relevant. I felt strongly against your words in the moment and wanted to clearly send a message that as a fellow editor I didn't care for that sort of attack against another editor. It was not my intention to demean you as a person or to demean your contributions, so if you interpreted it as such, that was a failure on my part. That said, I would like it if we could move past these superficialities and get back to normal civil discourse without any lingering prejudices, because vandals are our usual enemies, and we treat them with far more civility than they deserve. Both you and Aussie have contributed tons, so as a show of good faith, and with the hope that whatever existing fires can be quenched, I apologize to you for my irritated and sharp comments. Respectfully, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the editing of "Usage share" section of "Microsoft Windows" article. Now the table looks more neat. All the best. Nicolas Love (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. Fleet Command (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this section have a link to Microsoft Windows#Usage share? .. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not mandatory at all. Fleet Command (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I seemed pissy...

...in my edit summary just now. I'm dealing with one of those bull-in-china-shop types somewhere else just at the moment. EEng (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello FleetCommand:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Codename Lisa (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks

Thanks very much for the kitten and your kind words! Cloudbound (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy new year... Codename Lisa (talk)

Happy New Year, FleetCommand!

Happy New Year!

FleetCommand,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Clarification

In the same sense that Windows NT 4.0 was similar to Windows 95 in graphical environment in that the two operating systems (2000 and ME) look the same but are different. I don't know if you're really disputing the graphical environments being identical as in the look or if you're actually referring to the different architecture (for lack of better word), since the operating systems are very different, but in one aspect, are the same in terms of sharing almost the same shell improvements over 98. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Windows Defender

Breaking dozens of our laws? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello, NeilN

I was about to come to your talk page on this subject. I don't go as far as saying "dozens" but it certainly breaks WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:LEAD.

To summarize, this "contribution" uses exaggeration, fabrication, a pinch of imagination and the aid of an unreliable source to insert a scary false sentence onto the lead, where is scares people the most. The simplest lie that even a non-technical person can verify for himself is "Microsoft is in the process of releasing a security fix." This a lie because the sources say the opposite: Microsoft patched it unprecedentedly fast.

In addition, tThree editors have so far reverted this "contribution"; there is clearly a consensus against it. Let's say it is truly a content dispute as you say. Just because he is an IP editor does not mean he has the right to violate WP:3RR, which he has, when I reported him. Why did you fail to take action in that regard?

Best,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Your assertions of bad faith editing and vandalism didn't help here along with zero article talk page posts by anyone and zero warnings for the IP. Now, can you please explain why you shouldn't be blocked for violating WP:3RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: The IP editor is clearly engaged in sneaky vandalism: "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles". I don't know how much you know about computers but what that IP wrote is pure stinking filth.

WP:3RRNO articles 3 and 4 provides sanctuary for what Codename Lisa did: Reverting vandalism (article 4) and reverting action by a banned user (article 3). (I am referring to this diff: [1]. Codename Lisa, give him your list.)

If it helps keep your hand away from the block button (which would be the mistake of your whole life, given CL's reputation) I will open a discussion thread in the article talk page. But mark my word, it is a mistake to show lenience to vandals. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Unluckily for you, I happen to know a lot about "computers". The edit was not vandalism or "pure stinking filth". Where's the WP:SPI on the banned editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Why unlucky? It is not like I hate you to know computers or something.

CL already explained the the second sentence was false. (More explanation in the article talk page.) Let's assume the first is totally fine. Vandalism isn't always a content type. Sometimes, a contribution is identified as vandalism because it is in the wrong place. There have been millions of instances where an IP added the name of an Indian guy to some random article. It is always reverted as vandalism. Had the content gone into an article of its own and sources were added per BLP policy, no one would have reverted it. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I must ask: What merit have you seen in the contribution that you think this Internet vigilante may be worth assumption of good faith? (By the way, unlike what you said, CL didn't assert bad faith. I did.) Is it not that the contribution might have scared you too and made you raise your guard? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: An example just dropped from the sky: This diff is vandalism. But because of the place and context not because of the contents. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: You know, there is also a third procedure for when an admin is unsure whether he is dealing with a dispute or persistent vandalism: In this case, the page is fully protected at the pre-dispute state for three days. Just saying. I am not afraid of discussing in talk pages. My success in Wikipedia comes from it. But mark my word: The IP will not discuss.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)