User talk:FleetCommand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Apology[edit]

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[edit]

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...[edit]

...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![edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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.

The report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FleetCommand reported by User:WikIan (Result: Two editors warned) has been closed. You and the other party are both warned. See the report for details. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File hosting service[edit]

Pretty poor, if you ask me (and even if you don't), to delete an entire section you weren't otherwise going to delete just to make a WP:POINT against me. I'm sure you know as well as I do that the content of that unreferenced section was overall accurate, but you chose to feed on what I - in your view - "gave you". Boo. LjL (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: No. I am pretty sure that "Authors of software often use file hosting services to serve their software" is a big lie. To my extent of knowledge, authors of software use web hosting services, source code repositories and software download services such as Download.com and Softpedia. I've never seen a single author to use OneDrive, DropBox, Box.net, Mediafire, Rapidshare, etc. to publish software.
As for "WP:POINT against me", you are just assuming bad faith. I am sorry to hear it but I am ready to participate in a talk page discussion about this section. You can expect my fullest cooperation. Fleet Command (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The bad faith assumption was because of your edit summary. It seemed pretty directly against me, it read like "So you want a part of it to be reinstated? Fine, then I'll delete even the other parts". LjL (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: You are right. That is 90% of what it meant. The remaining 10% is "because they are unreferenced and I doubt if they are true." It is this 10% that matters. You see: I don't know you; I have no idea whether you are angel or demon; so I neither think ill nor good of you. Your person does not factor in. The sum of everything that I see and find questionable is the sentences that I deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg

Wishing you a merry Christmas and a happy new year...

Codename Lisa (talk)

Microsoft Office[edit]

I swear I cited https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3134241. I tripple checked just to make sure I would not repeat the same mistake. I don't understand how this happened. Dolinarm (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


Comparison of file synchronization software/On-demand file download[edit]

I just started this column and its _populatenss_ could increase over time.. Comparison_of_file_synchronization_software diff

If none of other software supports this feature then should I put there "no"s? Xadixi (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xadixi: Sorry for the delay in my response; I've been extremely busy. Articles like Comparison of file synchronization software rapidly become stagnant so it is important that contributors contribute information with sources, and contribute entire columns (or at least nearly full columns). Putting unique features in a table, where all cells of a column except one or two is "No" isn't beneficiary either. After all, it is not a demonstration of features, but it is a comparison. Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Split media - processed[edit]

Template:Split media - processed has been nominated for merging with Template:Split media. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of File synchronization[edit]

Dear Fleetcommand, What is soapbox about the edit i made. Its a simple add. I'm a Student and all references sited are neutral. I'm trying to add this and I think its a noteworthy edit. How can any product/brand ever be added if you are not allowed to add a product/brand? The information is certainly from a neutral perspective as well as the references, so i don't get the problem. The formatting is right this time, so i'm not getting why it's undone. Tannoniem (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Tannoniem. Every one who ever edits Wikipedia must read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not article first.

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.

So, every subject you add to Comparison of file synchronization software must have an article. So, write the article first. Of course, the article subject must also be notable. Or else the article gets deleted.
Fleet Command (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Fleetcommand. Thanks for the Reply. I will create an article about Storro. It's notable for sure, since its a decentralized and secure way to store an share data, which other "cloud" services are completely lacking. Have a nice day.

Tannoniem (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Outlook.com[edit]

Are we really going to argue over this again? Outlook on the web is not limited to the "private email" products that you think it is, Outlook.com also received Outlook on the web. I don't understand why you like to make things up without sourcing your claims. That citation I provided clearly says that with the new Outlook.com experience you can "Sign in to Outlook on the web using any Microsoft account, including email accounts ending in @outlook.com" which is NOT a Office 365 account OR an Exchange account. You have yet to provide evidence as to why my edits are wrong. WikIan -(talk) 16:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Microsoft Forefront TMG Console.png[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Windows Live Messenger Mobile screenshot.png[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hatnotes[edit]

@OSX: I just noticed a number of hatnote removals by you, such as this one. I am not quite clear what the problem is, but I am sure that you are right. However, how can we retain the effect of these hatnotes without falling foul of whatever policy it is you're defending? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: There is actually no violation as far as I can tell. Another user insisted it was all wrong on my talk page: User talk:OSX#Kia Pride. However, I lost interested in having a discussing with someone who insisted they were right without actually pointing to a policy that backed up their assertion. I'd actually like to see the policy that states it is not allowed. OSX (talkcontributions) 02:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: Those articles use {{Main}} because the author was either too lazy to write "Main article" or thought that writing {{Main article}} is more classy than writing "Main article". There comes a number of problems with it:
  1. Software that consume Wikipedia, like the Word plugin and Wikiwand remove hatnotes and move them to the margin
  2. WP:HATNOTE specifies a strict set of use cases for hatnotes; this certain ugly pointless use, which has no benefit whatsoever, is not among them
  3. Let's say there is no problem and there is no violation, okay? My version, which makes links part of the natural flow of the articles is definitely an improvement. Natural writing is always better than articles which are made of prebuilt bits and pieces like a slapdash henhouse.
@OSX: ...without actually pointing to a policy that backed up their assertion
I am looking at your talk page right now and I am seeing an explicit quotation from the policy. What are you driving at?
Fleet Command (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree entirely with this. I think your versions are far worse than before and make it harder to find the main article. Whether you find it "ugly" is not relevant (I actually don't believe it is). The policy that I was directed to by Codename Lisa was WP:LEGITHAT—and this has nothing to do with the this use of hatnote. WP:LEGITHAT states that "hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself". "Main articles: Ford Festiva and Kia Rio" provides no information, and does exactly what it is supposed to: direct readers to other articles.
I have yet to be directed to any specific policy that states {{main article}} cannot be used in WP:set index articles. I suggest this please be provided like I have repeatedly asked for. OSX (talkcontributions) 06:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@OSX:
"I think your versions [~snip~] make it harder to find the main article". Previously you had to click on "Ford Festiva", "Kia Rio" and "Kia Rio" and now you have to click on "Ford Festiva first gen", "Kia Rio JB" and "Kia Rio UB" in the exact same places. Are you honestly calling this harder?
"hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself". With all due respect sir, le mon dieu has given me eyes and I can read the whole discussion in your talk page and the entire WP:Hatnote. You are quoting a completely irrelevant out-of-context sentence, ignoring the relevant parts. Please do not resort to such underhand tactics again; read the whole policy and fathom its purpose. Try answering this: What are you trying to accomplish with {{Main article}} this is not accomplished without it?
"I have yet to be directed to any specific policy that states {{main article}} cannot be used in WP:set index articles." And you will never be. None of my three reasons had the words "set index articles" in them. All hatnotes can be legitimately used in set index articles. But yours is not a legitimate one.
Fleet Command (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am honestly calling your style less clear at pointing readers to the main page. Based from experience, new accounts and IPs like to expand articles like Kia Pride with more information as they think that is the page for it. With "main article" they tend to put new content in the correct page(s).
I have read the entire WP:Hatnote and I cannot find anything that would suggest the usage we had is not kosher. I am not quoting "completely irrelevant out-of-context sentence, ignoring the relevant parts" of the policy when I was directed to the exact part of it by Codename Lisa. She specifically stated there was a violation of WP:LEGITHAT so that is what I quoted back to her to demonstrate it had nothing to do with the usage previously in place. So back off with your accusations and actually read the conversations properly yourself.
Given you once again cannot provide any policy justification except "trust me, I know I am right please believe me", I think User:Mr.choppers and I are within our rights to revert. The onus has been on you to demonstrate impropriety, which you have not done. OSX (talkcontributions) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@OSX:
"The onus has been on you to demonstrate impropriety, which you have not done." With all due respect, I have provided three reasons and you have so far only responded to one and chose to ignore the other two. I even asked you a direct question and you ignore that too. No sir, playing a game of "refusal to get to point" does not give anyone the right to revert; it is an instance of disruptive editing. In fact, you have spent a lot of time discussing unpleasant Wiki-politics. Make your decision: Are you here to cooperate in building an encyclopedia or have a fight? I don't do fights.
"...Mr.choppers..." Mr.choppers can perfectly speak for himself. In fact, I'd like to know his opinion, as well as Codename Lisa's opinion on this: Previously you had to click on "Ford Festiva", "Kia Rio" and "Kia Rio" and now you have to click on "Ford Festiva first gen", "Kia Rio JB" and "Kia Rio UB" in the exact same places. Are you honestly calling this harder?
Fleet Command (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Your three reasons are all based on your personal preference rather than actual policies. There is no point to get unless you want me to adopt your preferences. You pointed to policies that say nothing on that matter, and when I took issue with this you launched into a defensive tirade of accusing me of taking things out of context (which I have not done), refusing to get the point (meaningless and again passing the buck), and now not cooperating in building the encyclopaedia. I find all three rude and see this as an unpleasant way of trying to pass blame onto me for something that I have done none done anything wrong in. As a long-standing editor in the automobile article area, I have not seen you around previously, so I find your obsession with these pages odd. Cooperating in building an encyclopedia does not entail you imposing your aesthetic whims onto others and then demanding we all nod and agree just because you say so. Obviously at least two automobile editors don't like this imposition so maybe you could work with us better to build the encyclopedia. OSX (talkcontributions) 00:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is harder because it is less clear. A set index is mainly a list meant to enable users to find the appropriate article; the clearer the links the better. Your favored version is much less clickable, being in my opinion overly wordy and also missing the indent. The articles do not use the Main template because of laziness, but to provide a well formatted and uniform style for the automobile set indices. FWIW, User:Zilog Jones originally used the "See" template when the Mazda 121 set index was created in 2010. Another argumetn against your laziness theory is that I actually went through the trouble of spelling out the format of the See template in order to retain this uniformity of style.  Mr.choppers | ✎  08:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Mr.choppers: Thank you very much for your enlightening comment. I accept the consistency as a valid take on the matter; one that certainly merits attention. Fortunately, there is good news for you: WikiWand has fixed its software, so that hatnotes in image captions are now rendered properly. (So, I probably won't need to revert the edits of Mr. "long-standing editor in the automobile article area".) That's two of my reasons negated. That leaves us with only minor points to address:
  • WP:REPEATLINK must still not be violated; one link the lead, one in the image caption and one in the prose is enough.
  • WP:SUBMARINE must still not be violated; it is the very opposite of your accessibility angle if the user clicks on a link and be taken to a completely different article.
  • WP:LEGITHAT must still not be violated outside of image captions that have hatnotes; if you want to expound on a topic a hotnote is okay. (But then, an additional link is not. See WP:Summary style.) But if you want to list the links, a hatnote is redundant.
I might as well point out that to the extent that your consistency angle holds, the natural flow should not be sacrificed either. This is very important if we are to promote any of these articles to a featured list. By the way, do you have any featured lists in your record that we can use as a model?
Thanks
Fleet Command (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi FC! Could you give me an example of a problematic submarine link in one of these articles? I looked here and I don't see what the problem is. I guess the top-of-page hatnotes may be argued since the same links are also in the image caption, but as for submarining I find your version much more problematic. For instance, clicking on "First Generation" here takes one to Nissan Bluebird - which is confusing. The fact that "Datsun Bluebird" takes a reader to the "Nissan Bluebird" page in "our" iteration has got to do with the Nissan Corporation's naming practices, and the fact that a variety of names were used in an overlapping fashion. All of these redirects and set indices and naming practices are the results of the very confusing names used by corporations over decades and across different markets. Our efforts (speaking for the entire Automobile Project) is an attempt to make articles findable for a global audience and to make clear how the various names have been applied. We are essentially trying to straighten out an incredibly confusing global hodgepodge of names, and Template:Main has been a useful little tool. As far as repeatlink, sure. I have to run, I hope I am being clear and if not plz ask me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It is great to have you onside now Fleet Command. So thank you! WP:REPEATLINK is fine to follow as far as I can see, as is WP:LEGITHAT. My only (potential) issue is WP:SUBMARINE. Over at the Holden Apollo set index article, the page directs readers towards two other articles: Toyota Camry and Toyota Camry (XV10). The former obviously covers all the different Camrys, and XV10 a specific generation. We do not have a separate article for the V20 generation, but to maintain consistency the link shows as "Toyota Camry (V20)" but actually links to "Toyota Camry#Holden Apollo" (the Apollo subsection of the V20 section). For the XV10 caption, the links displays "Toyota Camry (XV10)" but is actually "Toyota Camry (XV10)#Holden Apollo". Is this okay? OSX (talkcontributions) 02:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers: About WP:SUBMARINE, it appears OSX has understood. So, just be sure we are 100% clear, I spell it out. Look at the article to which you linked to find this:

{{main|Toyota Camry#Holden Apollo|l1=Toyota Camry (V20)|Toyota Camry (XV10)#Holden Apollo|l2=Toyota Camry (XV10)}}

It implies that there is an article called Toyoto Camry (V20) while in fact there isn't. (It even says "article"!) I have fallen into this trap thousands of times: I open a link that says "See article X" and another that says "See article Y" only to realize there are no articles X or Y; it is just one article A with sections X or Y and I have already read them.
The good news is that {{Main}} is outfitted to deal with this situation. This:

{{main|Toyota Camry#Holden Apollo|Toyota Camry (XV10)#Holden Apollo}}

Generates this:

Main articles: Toyota Camry § Holden Apollo, and Toyota Camry (XV10) § Holden Apollo

As for the image caption in that article; like I said, I was wrong and you were right. I don't think there is anything left there.
@OSX: It seems there is a reason we are encouraged to discuss the content, not the contribution after all. For me, this dispute is settled; I was wrong. (No big deal.) Any problem that is left is, as I said, minor. If we didn't fix them, it is very far from being the worst thing.
I say, OSX, go talk to Codename Lisa about our consensus, so that you can restore the Kia Pride article as well. And don't worry, she is a very friendly editor.
Fleet Command (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I, too, am fully clear. Hope to encounter you again.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving talk pages[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you moved Voice Recorder (Windows) back to Sound Recorder (Windows) but accidentally unchecked the "Move associated talk page" box, causing the talk page to not be moved. I have moved the talk page now, but next time, you should leave the box checked so that the talk page will be moved along with the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thx. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)