User talk:HonestIntelligence

Welcome!

Hello, HonestIntelligence, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Security Essentials

Hello

I wanted to drop you a note about your recent edit in Microsoft Security Essentials article. Unfortunately, the quality of your edit was dangerously low, even for a normal article. Featured articles like Microsoft Security Essentials need very high quality contributions. You had broken over thirteen WP:MOS rules.

Apart from that, during the article nomination for its featured article status, we discussed at length about how to cover the product's lack of ability to protect and eventually decided using objective results (like protection score = 1.5 out of 6) instead of subjective words (like "dire", "awful", etc.) To put it bluntly, if someone does not understand that "lost certification" and "1.5 out of 6 for protection score" is awful, I do not have much hope of he or she understanding the meaning of awful at all. In addition, Wikipedia is not a battleground. We do not add undue length of sentence to hammer a product, with or without source. Neutral point of view is of paramount importance here.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only you lived up to your cries for quality in the note you've left here. As far as I can remember, I simply quoted the source of the review, and gave a link to it. So all the bollocks you speak of battle ground and neutrality you can address to the source. Unless my memory fails me and I added stuff that was not there.

As an anti-virus product it has to be absolutely up to date, the latest reviews and measurements ALWAYS take precedence over earlier ones. If you can't see that then please don't address me again.

If the Microsoft Security Essentials article is one you think is worthy ... well of anything; then I would hate to see an article you regard as poor. HonestIntelligence (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I understand your frustration. Neutrality and objectivity can hurt, if the person subjected to them is ill-targeted. I myself do not recommend Microsoft Security Essentials to anyone and often use the imperative sentences "steer clear from it". That is because outside Wikipedia, I am a person who has emotions. But there, I am in control of to whom I speak. I never say such a sentence to a devout fan of Microsoft; it only antagonizes him.

But here, we are not in control of to whom we speak. All we can do is to be neutral and objective and hope "1 out of 6" does not have the reverse effect. That's why citing an independent test lab is always a better idea than citing a journalist who can always be conveniently accused of sensationalism. In this instance, the source of Darien Graham-Smith is AV-TEST; well, we have directly cited newer AV-TEST results in the article.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My short response is; piss off. My longer response is; I doubt you "understand"; don't be so condesending, and piss off. Look at wikipedias own article on PC-Pro magazine; it seems a sound source. I was not frustrated, you were impolite.

The MOS is a "Guideline"; then you said I broke at least 13 of the "rules". Which shows you to be a bit of a prat. I've looked at your user page, and it really underlined for me the inadequacies of your personality I suspected from your first utterances.

Please can I invite you to never contribute to this talk page again - I simply find you an annoying American, even if that isn't your nationality. HonestIntelligence (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really apologize for interjecting, but... Whoa, dude, calm down! No need for personal attacks or a false generalizations based on assumed nationality. Just understand the fact that many Wikipedia editors are not interested at making Wikipedia a helpful source of information but rather see it as a mere tool to stroke their bureaucratic ego, ignore them and move on. Trust me, it is the best solution ;-) 173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except Codename Lisa is not such a person. Maybe she is not perfect, but I've discovered that if you can't befriend her, you can't probably befriend anyone. And she is right, I won't touch an antivirus that got 1 out of 6. 188.245.27.74 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Befriend her"? Why? Is this an android dating site or something? And last time I've looked at, such activity falls directly under WP:CANVASS and is not really permitted ;-) 173.68.110.16 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perfectly calm here. I was simply utterly rejecting Lisa, at a fundamental level. There was subtlety about the {annoying American} comment you misunderstood. I could instantly see her as someone stroking their bureaucratic ego as you put it (very well put!); hence the sharp rap on her shitty personality. Not personal attacks, but cold assesment. I felt it would be remiss of me to ignore someone knocking on my front door, so like a Jehovah's Witness, I felt it only polite to tell her to piss off! :) HonestIntelligence (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]