Codename Lisa

Welcome, Codename Lisa!

Hello, Codename Lisa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WEP problem

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at Talk:List of features removed in Windows 8.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Concerning your reverts on WDDM

The Microsoft MSDN article clearly states "Windows 8.1 Preview introduces version 1.3 of the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM)" and "The following functionality has been added in Direct3D 11.2, which is included with Windows 8.1 Preview, Windows RT 8.1 Preview, and Windows Server 2012 R2 Preview." along with all the features that I supposedly 'claimed'. WDDM1.3 is in fact used in Windows 8.1 Preview, you can verify it by yourself.

Talkback on User talk:Rezonansowy

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at Rezonansowy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013

VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Background for Legacy of the Void

I am curious to know how such a short summary of past games as an introduction to LotV would be removed under WP:IINFO. I had always planned that the section be removed when LotV was released, but in the meantime, given that Blizzard has stated that Zeratul will be focus of the and that the information in the section relates what Zeratul has done in the time between Brood Wars and LotV, I thought the section to be short enough to provide an explanation of how we got Amon being the main villain and what force he would be commanding. At the various least I expected to see some sort of discussion on whether the section should be there to establish whether a short summary of the events till now was appropriate for an article.

Don't misunderstand now, I'm not going to start an edit war or a revert war, but I would like a better explanation than a link to a section of WP:NOT. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries, and given that the game is split into three separate and for all intents and purposes independent games, I personally think it unwise to omit the two paragraphs since they more precisely summarize the hybrid/Amon issue confirmed to be the main factor in the game. It is apparent that you disagree with that assessment, so I've come to ask why you guillotined the two paragraphs without even a talk page discussion to establish consensus for keeping them or removing them. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

The sections was an utter disappointment when I came there because after I followed the {{See also}} links and got myself acquainted to the context what's coming ahead, I discovered that nothing is coming ahead! The section had nothing and yet this nothing had filled 7 KB space. If that is not indiscriminate, then I am really confused as to what is indiscriminate.

As for "guillotined" part, a talk page discussion prior to edit is appropriate when the editor understands that his edit is definitely controversial but also absolutely necessary. For all other cases, we follow WP:BRD. I didn't think my edit is so controversial that merits a talk page discussion before the edit. Naturally, I am surprised to see you care so much about the section. Still, I can tell you, if someone had reverted me, I'd have left the revert to itself; in bewilderment, yes, but would have left it nonetheless.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually in point of fact the background section only occupied about 1.5kb of space, the rest was inline citations to back up what I had written. Like I said above, I had written the section for a drive by reader with the understanding that it would be removed when the game was released. I've given up on defending fiction here in any capacity owing to my opinion that Wikipedia is slowly but surely implementing a 'final solution to the fictional question' that will no doubt leave nothing on here remotely related fiction, so I will not re-add my section. I am glad to see that you got back to me though, I suppose in hindsight even if its not a drive by reader friendly section anymore you can still read about the background from the articles on the preceding games, so this deletion makes a little more sense to me now. In any event, thanks for the elaboration on the section's removal, I appreciate it, and I wish you happy editing.

All the best, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foreign accent syndrome

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foreign accent syndrome. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Windows 8.1 key

Actually, what Paul refers to is the Windows 8.1 installer for clean/upgrade installs for those who purchased 8.1 after its release and already have a product key (the install link from the e-mail). Upgrade Assistant is in two parts; the first part is the compatibility checker and purchase step, while the 2nd is Windows 8(.1) Setup (which actually does the installation). ViperSnake151  Talk  01:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ghouta chemical attack

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ghouta chemical attack. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edits in the PDF article

Dear Codename Lisa. I do not understand why did you remove some new references and some information in the PDF article. You removed part of my work. If I used bad english, I am sorry for that, but if you can, please correct it. I would like to cooperate with other people, but that is not possible if someone remove other's work without a discussion.

1. Why did you remove the following sentence in the first paragraph of the article?: "However, there are still some technologies used in PDF files, that are defined only by Adobe and remain proprietary." The first paragraph claims that the PDF is a completely open standard and that is not true - and that is why I added there that sentence and three new references to sources.
2. Why did you remove a reference to the European Commission document : "Against lock-in: building open ICT systems by making better use of standards in public procurement"? It included a note that ISO 32000 contains references to proprietary technology.[1]
3. Why did you remove a reference to the document "Embedding and publishing interactive, 3-dimensional, scientific figures in Portable Document Format (PDF) files"? It mentions proprietary extensions of 3D specifications from Adobe.[2]
4. Why did you remove the following words? : "are only subsets of the full Adobe's PDF specification" in the sentence: "The previous ISO PDF standards (PDF/X, PDF/A, etc.) are only subsets of the full Adobe's PDF specification and are intended for more specialized uses."
5. Why did you move the section about "Specialized subsets of PDF" to the section "Technical overview"? Standardization of specialized subsets is a substantial part of the history of PDF. For example, PDF/X and PDF/A became ISO standards before PDF 1.7 - and you want to remove this information from PDF history? PDF/E and PDF/UA were proposed ISO standards in the time of preparing ISO 32000. I don't think the "Technical overview" is appropriate section for information about history of standardization of subsets.
6. Why did you ask for clarification and now are you asking for citation for the words "full function PDF"? Did you read the first pages of PDF specification? On the page VII of ISO 32000 (freely published by Adobe) is the following sentence: "ISO 32000 is an ISO standard for the full function PDF; the following standards are for more specialized uses. PDF/X (ISO 15930) is now the industry standard ..."[3]
7. Why did you remove the following sentence? : "The purpose of specialized subsets of PDF specification is to remove those functions of "full function PDF", that are not needed or can be problematic for specific purposes and to require some usage of functions that are only optional (not mandatory) in "full function PDF"."

--89.173.219.155 (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

I'd be glad to correct things as long as I know what is the correct thing to write. As for your bullet points:

1. Three reasons: First, it contained excessive quoting which is a copyright violation. Two, according to MOS:LEAD lead section should be a summary of the article and should not supply novel info. Three, Adobe extensions are not part of the standard and their openness is irrelevant, so your objection is basically inventing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.
2. Same as above. Besides, why keep a source when the sentence corresponding to it does not exist anymore?
3. Same as above.
4. See #7 below.
5. History section should only contain time-sensitive information, not information that are always correct. If you have anything about time and events regarding those specialized standards, you can add to history section, but not about their technical details.
6. Because you just removed the tag without clarifying things. I thought I'd better clarify it myself; only I didn't have any source. There was no footnotes and the article had 91 sources. Which one should I looked? It seems there is an article talk page message is added. I'll check it as soon as I finish this. Maybe someone added something useful.
7. Because it is wrong. First, subsets do not add or change anything of their own. These specialized standards add requirements that were not originally mandatory. They have certainly done more than removing. Second, their spec documentation states different purposes for each. Third, some of them are created years before "full function PDF" standardization, so even without checking the spec, it is obvious that they did not intend to reduce something that is yet to exist.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

1. "First": excessive quoting can be reduced or removed - I think that is not a reason for removing the reference. "Two": the title "open standard" is used for the PDF specification in the lead section of the PDF article, but there are many definitions of an open standard - and it is misleading to title it as an "open standard" without any explanation or notes. Information about proprietary functions in PDF are not a novel information in the article. Look at the XFA section of the PDF article - there is an explanation of the proprietary character of XFA - which is used in the ISO 32000 specification. "Three": You are wrong (AFAIK). I am talking mostly about XFA, "Rich Text" and also about Adobe JavaScript and 3D. XFA is not an extension, it is used in PDF since PDF 1.5 (year 2003) and also in ISO 32000. XFA is a proprietary specification and it is referenced and used in some parts of the ISO 32000 standard. (It is in the "normative references" which are are indispensable for the application of ISO 32000.) The ISO working group's document (which I referenced) talks about it very clearly - XFA is not standardized - and ISO working group demands stabilization and standardization of XFA.[4] This is the primary thing I meant. So - it is a real problem and it should be noted in the lead section. Furthermore, Leonard Rosenthol from Adobe stated in his presentation: "Continue de facto to de jure: - Adobe JavaScript, - Rich Text"[5]. In his live presentation on iText Summit (video is available here: [6]) he stated, that these specifications - "Adobe JavaScript" and "Rich Text" (which also use XFA specification) are under the control of Adobe (so they are proprietary) and they will be standardized for PDF 2.0 and under the control of ISO committee. Last but not least: the article's lead should also contain information about the possibility to legally extend the PDF format using proprietary extensions (following the Annex E of the ISO 32000) and about existing Adobe extensions of PDF. This possibility is an essential part of the ISO 32000 specification (it is not a supplement - it was published by ISO). The article's lead section says: "PDF remained a proprietary format, ... until it was officially released as an open standard". This is saying something like: "now it is a completely open standard and there are no proprietary parts". And that is not true.
2. Same as above. And I generally think there are other possibilities than removing references - for example move the reference to some relevant place in the article. References are in general very useful and on Wikipedia there are always problems with missing sources - so why to remove them? Furthermore, it is very important to know about possible vendor lock-in threat - and this should be noted in the article's lead.
3. Same as above. If I understand that reference correctly, it also talks about proprietary extensions and implementation of 3D, incomplete implementation of the U3D and PRC and an incomplete documentation.
4. See #7
5. OK, but as I already said - I think the whole "Subsets" section should be in the "History" section. I do not understand why you do not accept that it is "time-sensitive": any paragraph in the "Subsets" section contains a year of the first publication of that subset (i.e. a time-sensitive information) and the subsets are sorted by the year of publication. (e.g. "PDF/X (since 2001" ... "PDF/A (since 2005" ...)
6. On the page number VII. of the ISO 32000 specification (freely published by Adobe) is the following sentence: "ISO 32000 is an ISO standard for the full function PDF; the following standards are for more specialized uses. PDF/X (ISO 15930) is now the industry standard ..."[7]. Leonard Rosenthol from Adobe also calls ISO 32000 as an "ISO PDF umbrella" - for PDF/A, PDF/X, PDF/E, PDF/UA (subsets of the full PDF specification).[8]
7. "First": I agree - and that is why my sentence included the following statement: " and to require some usage of functions that are only optional (not mandatory)" ... . "Third": OK, maybe I should not use the name "full function PDF" in that sentence, because it was used in connection with ISO 32000 and maybe I should replace it with "full PDF specification". AFAIK PDF 1.7 is not the first PDF specification which include PDF/A or PDF/X functions. The following sentence should be already correct: "The purpose of specialized subsets of the full PDF specification is to remove those functions, that are not needed or can be problematic for specific purposes and to require some usage of functions that are only optional (not mandatory) in the full PDF specification."

--89.173.219.155 (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD - Internet Explorer 11 (and 1 and more?)

Hi, since you initiatied it, can I ask you? I've been reading up on the process. The discussion is more valuable than the votes, right? And the only thing that counts is notability, right? Internet Explorer is notable for sure, each new version might not be however - are you trying to get rid of these individual articles only? Or maybe some more, but not all? I mean it doesn't have to be an all or nothing question. I don't really know that IE11 is notable on it's own (IE1 surely is, just as the first version, but might still not need a separate article), it might be but I'm trusting you. However if you are wrong and the article gets deleted, I assume it doesn't mean it can't be added again? And even if it's notable on it's own should it have a separate article? Not clear to me, not the one that is there at least. Would you say you've migrated all the notable info from IE11 to IE? That is you want to delete the rest? comp.arch (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. They are notable alright, but what's the point of having same piece of text twice (in case of IE1) or four times (in case of IE11)? Maybe notability warrants having individual article; but must we have it just because we can? Take this example: I have rope. I can hang myself with it. Must I?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm with you on getting rid of the IE11 article content. Maybe I asked to many questions, your answer doesn't relly help me much (however I thought the content was in just two places..). comp.arch (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Some of your sentences have question mark at the end, (such as the 3rd and 4th) but I thought they are rhetorical questions – sentences that have the look of a question but are not questions. Did I get it wrong? Let me try again.

Can you ask? Well, you just did, so yes, you can! . Yes, the discussion is more valuable than the votes, because we seek consensus, not the opinion of the majority. No, notability is just a guideline; it is of little important in comparison to policies like WP:N and WP:NOT. (consider studying Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Yes and no; like I said, I am trying eradicate redundancy; so, if it is not redundant, no, I don't intend to delete it. (Same answer for the next question.) And, you are right; it doesn't have to be an all or nothing question. You assume right, deleted articles may be recreated or even undeleted, but as I said, redundancy is the concern, not notability. And you next question is the crux of the matter; my previous message treats this question entirely: If it is notable, it can have an article as long as there are no other barring issues like redundancy or violation of WP:NOT. As for the last two questions, yes, I daresay what has remained is what is not worth keeping.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I never said so. Sorry we lost (think you're right and was trying to support). And the questions were rhetorical when I say "right" (unless the answer is not "Yes"). comp.arch (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

IE11 got most of (my) attention. IE1 didn't get too much discussion. Note the merge proposal I did. I'm not sure it's too soon. Not sure there's a rule against it, might be subverting the process? :) Maybe for you, only, it would not be ok. Anyhow, not strictly the same proposal even if I had chosen AfD. Already did my first of those. Note how I changed the merge template to point to the source article. Didn't realize, AfD might have been the right option.. comp.arch (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. No I don't mind. Why? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Codename Lisa

	Kindness
	Your kindness will take you up the stars. LAMP (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Got your message in my talk page (LAMP or LAMP90), and here I quote: "Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to NTFS, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)" I'm not sure if this is the proper way to answer to a Talk, or even if I'm in the right place, because this is the first time I get a comment from someone in Wikipedia. Anyway, here I go: Guilty as charged: Originally intended to do a minor edit, but the more I corrected, the uglier it got, so I just did a Gordian Knot trick (see Alexander the Great), rewriting the whole paragraph in Notepad, and then poured it back in, recycling words here and there. If there was a graphic representation of sentence and paragraph meaning, some people's writing would look more like a pig's tail than a straight feather ( :-P tongue in cheek). Best regards, LAMP (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Office revert: removed vandalism, but my table left as well.  :(

Hello Codename Lisa. i noticed your latest revert removed my condensed table model and brought back the old (lengthy) one instead. This annoyed me a little, but then i read the change log to notice that someone vandalized the page with LibreOffice links. Next time, please do check to make sure that legitimate edits don't get treated link vandalism. If you have a genuine reason to prefer the old table over the new one, perhaps we can talk on the article's talk page. Sincerely, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about that. When I viewed the change, 203.215.117.47's vandalism was the last. I succeeded in reverting half an hour later because Wikipedia certificate had a problem and Firefox didn't like it. Misfires like this are bound to occur in Wiki-life, so please feel free to revert, rinse and repeat. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Closure of Afd of Internet Explorer 1

I really can't see how I made a bias decision to keep when nobody has posted in favor of deletion. I was entitled to make that closure as per all of the guidelines at WP:NAC. Finally, can you point me to the section of policy that allows an involved user to over-turn a NAC as I am unable to find it on any of the pages related to AfDs or NACs in general. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There are more "Merge" verdicts there than "Keep" verdicts and there is one "Redirect" verdict (a variation of "Delete") by Peter James. Some of the "Keep" verdicts are so weak that an experienced admin might overlook them. In addition, there are several other signals that indicate you lack competence in regard to closing AfDs including your critical lack of AfD policies. And no, you are not "entitled" to anything in regard to a forced closure; NAC is a privilege earned by respect, not a right. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps entitle was the wrong wording - a better choice may have been that I was following all of the guidelines at WP:NAC when I made the closure. While I haven't closed many discussions before, I am rather familiar with the policies surrounding deletion and was consulting them when I made the closure so I don't think competence can really be applied - after all, everyone has to start somewhere. That said, I can see this has become controversial so will leave the closure to an admin. Oddbodz (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fuzzy locating system

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fuzzy locating system. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at Comp.arch's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Windows 7 (and Vista/Office 2007) price comparison

Hello Codename Lisa. The reason the prices are there for Windows 7 is to provide a value per dollar spent comparison. MSRPs are a good way to see how much the extra features cost, especially when a product is getting out of print soon. Steve Jobs mocks the price points here ([toogl.es/#/view/gtSDlSVDibA] or [youtu.be/gtSDlSVDibA]) and Apple mocks them in the "Choose a Vista" commercial. WP:NOTPRICE, from my experience, applies more to non-notable pricing such as "it's on sale for $5 this week at Staples!". The prices were sourced from the original MSRPs, except for the very variant Enterprise version and the approximate $30 Windows refund for Starter. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

It seems we have a strong disagreement here. I am afraid your message only made me disagree more. For the start, Notability is a criteria for article inclusion; and since you aren't attempting to make an article on prices, I do not know why you used the term "notability" at all. As for the parts of the message that I do understand, I am afraid I do not find any relation between prices and the extra feature cost; in fact I know this relation may not exist, especially in case of Microsoft that has very free hand at pricing. (Off the top of my browsing history, see this: [9])

That said, WP:NOPRICE is quite blunt about it: To mention prices, you not only need a source (which did not exist in your edit), you need "mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price" ... "instead of just passing mention". And then, you need to supply that commentary in the article prose.

If you wish, you can proceed to the next step of WP:DR; because I am afraid I can hardly see prices justified.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:TheBus (Honolulu)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:TheBus (Honolulu). 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Computing.
Message added 13:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData‎

It wasn't vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData&oldid=562984860. —CKY2250 ^ταικ 13:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I can't believe such a bad choice of style is the result of planning for a certain goal, but right now, I am thinking maybe mw:VisualEditor/Portal/TemplateData was subject to vandalism and –

I'd better stop myself there. Anyway, you want to revert or something? Be my guest; I care but I don't mind.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what it looks like as long as it is easily read. I was just letting you know it wasn't vandalism.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 16:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just now looking at what you changed. I liked the page centered vs left align. I will revert it back. You are more than welcome to change the style keeping the layout.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sustainability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sustainability. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at True Tech Talk Time's talk page.
Message added 03:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Windows Aero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DPI (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) 09:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

When to go to ANI

Hi, Lisa. I thought I'd share a little advice on ANI and dealing with incivility.

• Incivility is, unfortunately, a common occurrence here. Most of the time, the community tries to regulate it by simply ignoring it and adhering to the civility rules as best they can for their own behavior. Most uncivil behavior is not so egregious that it makes continued collaborative editing impossible. In those cases, it is best to simply take the high road and continue editing.
• There are cases where incivility is severe and can grind productive editing to a halt. This includes harassing other users, racism, legal threats, etc. Those cases require immediate intervention by administrators and those cases should be reported to ANI.
• ANI is a public and often contentious venue. By bringing something up there, the user (in effect) invites community members to closely inspect the conduct of everyone involved in the case. In general, it is best to avoid going there if you can.
• Since you are somewhat unfamiliar with the policies regarding the noticeboards and were obviously acting in good faith, I highly doubt you will face any kind of sanction for raising the issue you raised. However, bringing something up at ANI with no merit and purely out of spite can actually backfire. Again, this is not something I am accusing you of doing, but I thought you should be aware of it for the future.
• I am not the final authority on Wikipedia and these are just my impressions. Take them or leave them as you see fit.

Let me know if you have any questions. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Hi! Congrats! There are more supporters in that talk page. And as I've stated there, I'll not break my decision. This is a special barnstar from me, hope you like it. Ah! It seems that a complete one year has been passed as of today since I joined Wikipedia. I've also realized that I'm learning something day-by-day regarding editing in Wikipedia. Thanks for co-operating me. If you have any queries, feel free to message me in those three sources as you wish. Himanis Das (Talk, Facebook me, Tweet me) 17:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deafness

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deafness. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Violations"

The word "violation" in edit summaries, as you stated in this edit, is improper. It applies in the context of law, like "copyright violation", but it does not apply to WP policies and guidelines, because, per WP:Five pillars#5, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". 99% of policies and guidelines stem from community consensus. The notion of "violating consensus" is incongruous and inappropriately forceful. Saying "Against (policy)" would be better, since it infers an action against consensus. --Lexein (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

That's probably true.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at Rezonansowy's talk page.
Message added 15:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Metro

Yep, I read the talk page. I wasn't trying to promote a bland name like "Microsoft design language" over "Metro", I was just trying to get rid of a dangling modifier ("later renamed to..." was modifying "Microsoft"). Sorry for my grammar nitpicking! :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

Thanks for your kind reply. I seem to need to clarify two things:

1. I did not mean to accuse you of promotion. I was just saying that we have a WP:TITLE policy. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
2. I am seeing your new edit and I am afraid I neither support nor oppose it; both cases are grammatically valid.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I don't mean to dwell on such a minor point, but since you ask: the comma turned "later renamed to..." into a parenthetical modifying "Microsoft", so the sentence, read literally, would say that Microsoft itself was renamed. Think of the comma as a placeholder for "which was". (See dangling modifier.) My second edit replaced the comma with "that was". Because "Microsoft" is a proper noun, "that was later renamed to..." must instead modify "typography-based design language", which is the intent. It's still awkward, though. I'd actually like to move "Microsoft design language" down to the last sentence, if you're alright with that: "It has since been incorporated, under the name Microsoft design language, into other Microsoft products..."

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Lexein (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

IE11 support

Hey, about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Explorer_11&oldid=581578793&diff=prev - I was wondering what does "supported" mean in this context?

Also, current information doesn't differentiate between support level for `document.all` and `attachEvent`, whereas the first works and the second doesn't which is important to existing code bases. m_gol (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Nice of you to drop by. I sure appreciate it.

As NCZ Online puts it "any code branches based on the presence of document.all will fail for Internet Explorer 11 even though code that actually uses document.all will work." It comes from WHATWG, which says "motivated by a desire for compatibility with two classes of legacy content: one that uses the presence of document.all as a way to detect legacy user agents, and one that only supports those legacy user agents and uses the document.all object without testing for its presence first." This is consistent with what you experienced. This state is called deprecated or unsupported.

Saying "document.all is removed" is not correct (you said it, right?) but saying "support for document.all is removed" is equal to "document.all is deprecated". But of course, it appears that my revert was also not correct because attachEvent is entirely removed. Only, right now, I am dead tired. I can't edit.

That said, original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia; please back your edits with sources.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a very detailed description! I appreciate it. I'll try to think how to phrase it better. I didn't think it's an original research by me, but you might be right; it's easy to forget about that. m_gol (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deafness

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deafness. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited XnView, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SH3 (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) 09:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

About remaking RSOD page

I was a little ticked off everyone supported merging Red screen with Blue screen and gave it one sentence. I thought that was a little cruel. ElectroPro (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter for November 2013

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has worked on some feature changes, major infrastructure improvements to make the system more stable, dependable and extensible, some minor toolbar improvements, and fixing bugs.

A new form parsing library for language characters in Parsoid caused the corruption of pages containing diacritics for about an hour two weeks ago. Relatively few pages at the English Wikipedia were affected, but this created immediate problems at some other Wikipedias, sometimes affecting several dozen pages. The development teams for Parsoid and VisualEditor apologize for the serious disruption and thank the people who reported this emergency at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and on the public IRC channel, #mediawiki-visualeditor.

There have been dozens of changes since the last newsletter. Here are some of the highlights:

• Accidental deletion of infoboxes and other items: You now need to press the Delete or ← Backspace key twice to delete a template, reference or image. The first time, the item becomes selected, and the second time, it is removed. The need to press the delete key twice should make it more obvious what you are doing and help avoid accidental removals of infoboxes and similar (bug 55336).
• Switch from VisualEditor to the wikitext editor: A new feature lets you make a direct, one-way editing interface change, which will preserve your changes without needing to save the page and re-open it in the wikitext editor (bug 50687). It is available in a new menu in the action buttons by the Cancel button (where the "Page Settings" button used to be). Note that this new feature is not currently working in Firefox.
• Categories and Languages are also now directly available in that menu. The category suggestions drop-down was appearing in the wrong place rather than below its input box, which is now fixed. An incompatibility between VisualEditor and the deployed Parsoid service that prevented editing categories and language links was fixed.
• File:, Help: and Category: namespaces: VisualEditor was enabled for these namespaces the on all wikis (bug 55968), the Portal: and Viquiprojecte: namespaces on the Catalan Wikipedia (bug 56000), and the Portal: and Book: namespaces on the English Wikipedia (bug 56001).
• Media item resizing: We improved how files are viewed in a few ways. First, inline media items can now be resized in the same way that has been possible with block ones (like thumbnails) before. When resizing a media item, you can see a live preview of how it will look as you drag it (bug 54298). While you are dragging an image to resize it, we now show a label with the current dimensions (bug 54297). Once you have resized it, we fetch a new, higher resolution image for the media item if necessary (bug 55697). Manual setting of media item sizes in their dialog is nearly complete and should be available next week. If you hold down the ⇧ Shift key whilst resizing an image, it will now snap to a 10 pixel grid instead of the normal free-hand sizing. The media item resize label now is centered while resizing regardless of which tool you use to resize it.
• Undo and redo: A number of improvements were made to the transactions system which make undoing and redoing more reliable during real-time collaboration (bug 53224).
• Save dialogue: The save page was re-written to use the same code as all other dialogs (bug 48566), and in the process fixed a number of issues. The save dialog is re-accessible if it loses focus (bug 50722), or if you review a null edit (bug 53313); its checkboxes for minor edit, watch the page, and flagged revisions options now layout much more cleanly (bug 52175), and the tab order of the buttons is now closer to what users will expect (bug 51918). There was a bug in the save dialog that caused it to crash if there was an error in loading the page from Parsoid, which is now fixed.
• Links to other articles or pages sometimes sent people to invalid pages. VisualEditor now keeps track of the context in which you loaded the page, which lets us fix up links in document to point to the correct place regardless of what entry point you launched the editor from—so the content of pages loaded through /wiki/Foobar?veaction=edit and /w/index.php?title=Foobar&veaction=edit both now have text links that work if triggered (bug 48915).
• Toolbar links: A bug that caused the toolbar's menus to get shorter or even blank when scrolled down the page in Firefox is now fixed (bug 55343).
• Numbered external links: VisualEditor now supports Parsoid's changed representation of numbered external links (bug 53505).
• Removed empty templates: We also fixed an issue that meant that completely empty templates became impossible to interact with inside VisualEditor, as they didn't show up (bug 55810).
• Mathematics formulae: If you would like to try the experimental LaTeX mathematics tool in VisualEditor, you will need to opt-in to Beta Features. This is currently available on Meta-wiki, Wikimedia Commons, and Mediawiki.org. It will be available on all other Wikimedia sites on 21 November.
• Browser testing support: If you are interested in technical details, the browser tests were expanded to cover some basic cursor operations, which uncovered an issue in our testing framework that doesn't work with cursoring in Firefox; the Chrome tests continue to fail due to a bug with the welcome message for that part of the testing framework.
• Load time: VisualEditor now uses content language when fetching Wikipedia:TemplateData information, so reducing bandwidth use, and users on multi-language or multi-script wikis now get TemplateData hinting for templates as they would expect (bug 50888).
• Reuse of VisualEditor: Work on spinning out the user experience (UX) framework from VisualEditor into oojs-ui, which lets other teams at Wikimedia (like Flow) and gadget authors re-use VisualEditor UX components, is now complete and is being moved to a shared code repository.
• Support for private wikis: If you maintain a private wiki at home or at work, VisualEditor now supports editing of private wikis, by forwarding the Cookie: HTTP header to Parsoid ($wgVisualEditorParsoidForwardCookies set to true) (bug 44483). (Most private wikis will also need to install Parsoid and node.js, as VisualEditor requires them.)

Looking ahead:

• VisualEditor will be released to some of the smaller Wikipedias on 02 December 2013. If you are active at one or more smaller Wikipedias where VisualEditor is not yet generally available, please see the list at VisualEditor/Rollouts.
• Public office hours on IRC to discuss VisualEditor with Product Manager James Forrester will be held on Monday, 2 December, at 1900 UTC and on Tuesday, 3 December, at 0100 UTC. Bring your questions. Logs will be posted on Meta after each office hour completes.
• In terms of feature improvements, one of the major infrastructure projects affects how inserting characters works, both using your computer's built-in Unicode input systems and through a planned character inserter tool for VisualEditor. The forthcoming rich copying and pasting feature was extended and greater testing is currently being done. Work continues to support the improved reference dialog to quickly add citations based on local templates.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)