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)

Thank you for your constructive edits and thoughtful dialogue

Thank you for your constructive edits at {{Refn/doc}}, and also for your willingness to make a transition from multiple reverts to a good-faith discussion that resulted in real improvements to the template documentation. You and I both know from experience that assuming good faith is not always followed by constructive results, but I have found that it is always worth a try, and in this case it worked very well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You are welcome. I just don't know how to handle counter-reverts, especially when the person counter-reverting says he is unwatching and therefore he is not interested in having a conversation. Plus, I perceive there is a backlash against the BRD revert of a regular; e.g. If person X works on area A, B and C of an article, person Y make a BRD bold change to area D and person X do his BRD revert, person Y would feel that person X is not playing fair and resorts to counter-revert.

There is something else. From where I am standing, everyone except vandals are acting in good faith and I rarely have seen anyone doing anything born out of assuming bad faith. Hence, "assume good faith" is my second most hated argument because people keep irritating each other with it. They might as well replace it with "do not commit murder". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Windows Mobile

You reverted my change with a rather condescending note. I see many, many articles where "was" is used to signify a discontinued concept. I know I usually look for this "was" in article to quickly detect a discontinued concept. For example, bands like My Chemical Romance, Spice Girls, The Doors. Operating systems like OS/360, EPOC (operating_system). Are you implying that all of these should be fixed and that I (and perhaps a lot of other people) was detecting discontinued concepts incorrectly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phistuck (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello, Phistuck

Please sign your messages by inserting ~~~~ at the end; otherwise, next time, I might not remember who you are and you might not get notified of a reply.

But yes, you were using past tense and state verbs incorrectly. When past tense is used with a state verb, it implies that the sentence is no longer valid. For example: "In 1985, she was a baby." Well, obviously she isn't anymore, after 29 years. Or "Ryan was a soldier" implies he is no longer a solider; if he is still alive, he is now a civilian. So, when you say "Windows Mobile was a family of mobile operating systems" you are saying that the thing called "Windows Mobile" running on my phone is not an operating system anymore; which is wrong. Microsoft has cut its production, but not producing it does not turn it into a tomato. Some things do not change with the pass of time; for example "Tyrannosaurus is a genus of dinosaur."

If you wish to learn more, you need to consult with an appropriate schoolbook.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for you explanation, now I get it (I see that you have changed the pages I mentioned, I would expect you to mention that). You might to reconsider your condescending comments, though.

PhistucK (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Narconon

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Narconon. 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, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't listen carefully.

Hi, when David Levy, pointed this out, I should have listened more (as in also looked up WP:NOTADVICE). I was arrogant believing I was right (in every way) and used the same word "advise" again. You pointed to policy. We could maybe reasonably disagree what it applies to. But you, and others, seeing the word "advise", understandably apply the policy.

I've considered a public apology in Talk:Windows XP. Probably that is against policy, so it holds me back. I could reach out to peoples talk pages who responded but it might not be all people "involved".

Also in your first response (really about Microsoft), I took that into account, and thank for the constrained response, that was true.

[WP:NOTADVICE is not listed as a policy shortcut at the _target, maybe it should be.]

comp.arch (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am not in full command of what went on in Talk:Windows XP because I was watching it only in passing during that last few days. So, I am afraid most of your message is Greek to me. But as for WP:NOTADVICE, it is a subsection of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. In other words, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is one of the five supreme policies which supersedes all others. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The biggest point is that I'm sorry. If you didn't feel offended then ok. Others might. Maybe I'll post only to the Viper person. And I was trying to say that you are generally and regarding this matter giving good responses. I do know about, what you answer, not trying to break policy. Might ask you about a different wording that you could agree to about content for inclusion. comp.arch (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Circumcision

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Circumcision. 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, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just saw this on your talk page and then: "The WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) state that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention, but should be carried out by well trained medical professionals and under conditions of informed consent." Just noting that there is a fine line regarding WP:NOTADVICE (and WP:HOWTO). Some things can be ok, if carefully worded. comp.arch (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Jeh (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ew!

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

About Template:Infobox OS

I'm very sorry. That was my mistake. After creating Template:Latest preview software release/Chrome OS and Template:Latest stable software release/Chrome OS, I forgot to purge Chrome OS and version information did not appear, and I misunderstood that your edit had broken the template function. Thank you for repairing the template. --Claw of Slime (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on Windows 8.1

Hi. I'm not the editor who changed "Update" => "Update 1". Why you ignored my edit?! Did you read my edit summary or not? Instead of ignoring all edits, you should just revert or undo that specific edit. Careless edit by you. --Zyma (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Zyma

I am not careless; I did see your edit. But yes, I ignored it deliberately. Frankly, I am disinclined to get involved in War of Tools, whereby one tool changes ==Section== to == Section == and another tool the reverse, when the effect on the article is zero. These edits unnecessarily increase the size of my backlog and ArbCom has ruled that editors who constant engage in such can be banned. (Serves them right.)

I do not go around making such worthless edits myself and I do not revert someone who does it. But they become to casualty of a procedural revert, so be it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bliss RfC

Talk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links -- GreenC 06:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, GreenC. Frankly, I do not care to entangle myself in so much dirty wiki-politics for just one link. I do agree with you that "The external links sections are not the same as geocoords" but your decision of "I won't edit war over it" lasted only 14 hours, after which you did edit war. I don't understand; you've virtually won the RfC, so, why do you care so much to grope at something illegitimately when you can have it anyway?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The Screenshot!

Helooooo! And sorry for late, busy in preparing my project.

So here goes the screenshot: File:Windows 8.1 Start screen.jpg.

It has been taken from an activated Windows 8.1 Update (MSDN, Build 9600) shortly after installation (on another pc :P ), as the drivers got installed, the start screen notified that (see the image), which is a new feature. Gave the name "Wikipetan" and assigned File:Wikipe-tan without body.png as account picture as earlier. And everything are default, no changes made.

Isn't that cool?  HPD   ^talk  13:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, HPD. Nice user name by the way. Thanks for the update. But when I looked at the caption, I was in surprise for a few second as to what it means. "Update Start"? Then I realized the problem. You don't need to bother changing the caption. People first need to read the section on Update 1, then they understand what the caption means.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, Thanks! The caption is now fine. And now, shall I upload new screenshots of Taskbar (with Store apps pinned), Control panel (including icons of Add features to Windows 8.1, Work Folders), Internet explorer 11 etc?  HPD   ^talk  06:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again

WP:NFCC#1 says a non-free image must not be uploaded if words alone are enough. Recently, several images in Taskbar and Start menu articles were deleted because of this. So, I think must not upload these image. But we do have a screenshot of IE11 already.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok! No Prob!! And that taskbar file also needs to be deleted, so you have done the right work.  HPD   ^talk  15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

List of disk cloning software

Regarding reversion of my edit on List of disk cloning software, 13:25, 13 April 2014‎ Codename Lisa (Reverted 1 edit by Mmortal03 (talk): WP:NOTDIR: We're not a directory of just everything. This is our table or contents. WP:WTAF: Write the article first.)

Very curious on this one: Is there, as such, an applicable rule that states that EVERY entry on a list MUST have an article first, even though it has multiple references? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmortal03 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Mmortal03

Looking at my own edit summary, it seems I did give you the link to the policy. Did you read it?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Unified Modeling Language

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Unified Modeling Language. 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, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant Changes to Windows 8.1 /*Update*/ reverted

Yesterday, I edited Windows 8.1 "Update" section, and added some points to exaggerate the changes (with an authentic reference & you approved them). But today "ViperSnake151" reverted those changes, without stating any reason. I am new to editing Wikipedia stuff and their rules and regulations. I don't know why he did this, and he didn't reply to my post on his talk page. I guess you could explain it to me. A aniq22 (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, A aniq22

I neither hold the revert justified nor the manner of revert. Wikipedia reverting policy explicitly mandates every reverter to add an edit summary, unless it is a case of vandalism. Your edit was obviously not vandalism. Knowing ViperSnake151, however, I believe this was an oversight instead of an act of hostility.

Try asking him. He is a nice guy, although he may seem rough at times. And he has a history of good judgment too, so he might have a reason.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I actually did tell him on the talk page. The information was redundant to content already covered. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ViperSnake: Looks like you posted the message on A aniq22's user page, not their talk page, so I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't notice your message. Notifications aren't generated if you post on a user page, so A aniq would have only noticed it if they had been actively watching their watchlist, and that isn't so likely for a new user making their first steps. Also, you posted the message seven hours after you reverted, so they can't have noticed the message if they checked Wikipedia in the intervening time. I suspect that leaving a message on the right page soon after you reverted would have saved a lot of confusion here. Also, please bear in mind that you should always include an informative edit summary when reverting anything other than obvious vandalism or spam (plus a few other situations). Now would be a good time for you to review Wikipedia:Rollback, especially the part about "when to use rollback", as otherwise you might make bad reverts that might get dragged up at WP:ANI, etc. Sorry to sound bossy - it's just that I wouldn't want this to create problems for you in the future. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Guess you did a great job! Keep it up! Damirgraffiti |☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Windows Explorer

Now you’re just trolling. I know that you didn’t see the deletion reason (because it wasn’t seen in the log) and recreated it because you thought it was a mistake. � (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Version of Windows or edition of Windows?

Term edition is much more neutral than term version. I hope you understand and get my point.

Luigi.a.cruz (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Luigi

I am afraid I strongly disagree on neutrality; both are equally non-biased. Plus I think it is wrong. "XP Home" is not an edition of Windows Vista. It is a version of Windows. "Version" is a generic term. "Edition" is highly specialized; it is used when the objects of comparison have the same names and same version numbers.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This one is fun!

Hey, kid. Have you seen the latest comments of Daniel Case in Talk:Bliss (image)? I promise you: This one is fun. He has WP:MERGEed us! This guy is losing it. Fleet Command (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Fleet Command

I have not seen it and I am not planning to. In fact, I do not care, neither for his nor for your personal attacks, regardless of who is on the receiving end.

I was frustrated with the recent hail of disrespect for WP:BRD on my reverts and I made some careless edits on Waldir's talk page. But this retribution is too great. Now, if you will excuse me....

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha! LOL! Very funny comments.  HPD   ^talk  15:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Voting system

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Voting 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) 00:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Use Of Past Tense

Hopefully you can add more explanation around your reversion of my edit to the Palm OS article. The important part of the edit, IMHO, was the additional information; please leave the information intact.

I still enjoy using Palm powered devices (present tense), however, the Palm OS revisions described in the article were released in the past; therefore, past tense seems appropriate when writing about those events. More details will help me better understand how the reversion was intended to improve the Palm OS article. Thanks, MarkWarren (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mark.

Sorry about the blanket revert; I assumed I reverted two revisions only.

About past tenses, there is still a problem: "Was the first" means it is no longer the first. In an ongoing competition, it happens, but the first version always remain the first version, even if the company releases a version zero afterwards. (Number one is always equal to number one; it is true, whether you regard it version-wise or chronological.) "Palm OS 5.3 Simplified Chinese Edition provided Simplified Chinese support in September, 2003" means that support provided only for the entire length of September (or just one moment) and is not provided anymore. (That would be true about technical support, not language support.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this explanation along with the additional changes help explain the intent. MarkWarren (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You are annoying me by reverting my edits

You again? A hard-coded database? ROFLOL

If you think something is challengeable, you need to say it out loud first before doing anything. That's the definition of a challenge. Can't you speak your own native language?

If the author didn't place a reference you can't conclude it can't prove it. By doing a revert you are making a content removal. And that content cold have been useful to someone.

This is how it works: someone makes a contribution. Someone else thinks it is incorrect and places a template and also sends a message to the author letting it know that the content is being challenged in case it is not watching the page. The original author has the chance to either prove it is right by retrieving the source again (e.g. which book, which page, which website) or to fix it. To win a challenge, the author must be unable to prove the statements or if you proposal fall into silence.

It's so obvious that it's a service that I didn't even think that needed a citation. I double checked my server just to make sure it's correct. If someone challenges any content I have created, I will place references the when I drop by Wikipedia with them close to me. At least take your time to google it first next time because it's likely you'll find a reference yourself and do a favour for everyone.

Are you trying to prove you are right just to prove you are right again? You are annoying me. If you continue doing that I will consider it as harassment. And please don't use offensive and manipulating words like you did last time, dude. That's not what to be bold means.

Your sacred citation is right there now. --M4t3uz (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, M4t3uz

If you didn't like any of my previous comments about the OS, very well: I'll take them back. Consider them null and void. The following comment is my official stance:

Wikipedia policy is that content without source are challenged or removed and the burden of the source is on the person who adds the source. Also synthesis of the published sources is not acceptable, like you did in your last edit. Inserting a {{Citation needed}} is not the contributor's right; it is a privilege, an act of kindness that Wikipedia community bestows upon its most respected members.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I see that we had a dispute before as well; hence the reason behind your threat. However, in Wikipedia Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is a procedure that is employed hourly; reverting, being reverted and discussing the dispute is as common as it gets. Those who accept, flourish. I myself have been recurrently challenged and/or reverted by User:Jeh and I must say I love this person. So, instead of trying to write messages that hurts, please look for sources and talk to us. Believe me, you will love being a team player. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, gosh, *blush*. :) I would point out that policy is actually not quite so strict. It says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (emphasis added) Although this allows immediate removal, such is not required. And it does leave somewhat open the question of "what material needs a source?" (See also WP:BLUE.)

The fact remains though that Codename Lisa is correct, in that Wikipedia is not for material that you merely believe is true. Even verifying it by looking at one example system is not sufficient: One, it obviously does not represent the entire universe, or even the entire universe of Windows Server systems; and two, it's what we call original research.

Personal experience: Before I came to WP I had been writing on Usenet and on various tech forum sites for a very long time, mostly answers to tech Qs in my fields of specialty and interest, and I was very well regarded. Hell, I got an award from one site for the quality of my answers (many years ago; don't look for it now). But none of those venues required citations. It took me some time to understand how to write for Wikipedia. Although competence in the subject matter is required, that is not enough. You need to be willing to provide reliable sources for anything of substance, even if it seems completely obvious to you.

In WP's early days editors were generally much less stringent about citations, with the result that a great many articles still contain a great many unreferenced statements. It's very easy to look at such an article and simply do more of the same. But that isn't how we're supposed to be doing things now. This does make contributing a lot more work than dashing off a forum post, but it is essential to building an encyclopedia that the readers have reason to trust.

It could be argued that Codename Lisa's approach of simply deleting material that needs a citation is overly harsh and strict. However, my experience is that adding e.g. {{citation needed}} tags does not often result in the needed citations appearing in anything resembling a timely fashion. Deletion on the other hand is a pretty good prod: If you really want the material there, find a cite for it! (And if you can't, then it's probably not notable enough for WP.)

In short, when you are reverted, the best thing to do is assume that the person who reverted you has a good reason for the revert, and engage him or her regarding the subject matter on the article talk page. Coming to the other editor's talk page and complaining "you're annoying me" is much less likely to achieve a satisfactory result. Jeh (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This time I took a different approach: I added the opposite of what was removed, and added a source. Well, really the source is him, not mine. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—April 2014

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on performance improvements, image settings, and preparation for a simplified citation template tool in its own menu.

• In an oft-requested improvement, VisualEditor now displays red links (links to non-existent pages) in the proper color. Links to sister projects and external URLs are still the same blue as local links.
• You can now open templates by double-clicking them or by selecting them and pressing  Return.  This also works for references, images, galleries, mathematical equations, and other "nodes".
• VisualEditor has been disabled for pages that were created as translations of other pages using the Translate extension (common at Meta and MediaWiki.org). If a page has been marked for translation, you will see a warning if you try to edit it using VisualEditor.
• When you try to edit protected pages with VisualEditor, the full protection notice and most recent log entry are displayed. Blocked users see the standard message for blocked users.
• The developers fixed a bug that caused links on sub-pages to point to the wrong location.
• The size-changing controls in the advanced settings section of the media or image dialog were simplified further. VisualEditor's media dialog supports more image display styles, like borderless images.
• If there is not enough space on your screen to display all of the tabs (for instance, if your browser window is too narrow), the second edit tab will now fold into the drop-down menu (where the "Move" item is currently housed). On the English Wikipedia, this moves the "Edit beta" tab into the menu; on most projects, it moves the "Edit source" tab. This is only enabled in the default Vector skin, not for Monobook users. See this image for an example showing the "Edit source" and "View history" tabs after they moved into the drop-down menu.
• After community requests, VisualEditor has been deployed as an opt-in feature at Meta and on the French Wikinews.

The drop-down menu is on the right, next to the search box.

Looking ahead:  A new, locally controlled menu of citation templates will put citations immediately in front of users. You will soon be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) is being developed. In-line language setting (dir="rtl") will be offered as a Beta Feature soon. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.

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 or by joining the office hours on Monday, 19 May 2014 at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this on your own page, subscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry

Hi Codename Lisa, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs. 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 April 2014 (UTC)

Detaching version numbering templates

Hi! In your !vote in TfD you've mentioned that there is backlash against detaching version numbering templates. I couldn't find any traces of this discussion, which isn't strange, given that I was inactive on Wikipedia from summer 2012 until this month. If you happen to remember any particular location of such argument, could you please point me there? I am genuinely interested in rationales. Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dmitrij

I am afraid you misunderstood. I never said "detaching version numbering templates". I said "detaching version numbering". No "templates".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually I somehow made an error in section title. As I understand you, there is backlash against |frequently updated= style of maintaining version numbering. That was the topic I am interested in. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not really. But if my comment is that ambiguous, I'll strike it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you clarify your comment then? I feel stupid, but I really somehow fail to grasp it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Another try: you mean that there is backlash against transclusion of subpages of LSR without |frequently updated=yes? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Underlying lk said "it might be better to omit them from the infobox". And I said, no; there is a backlash against doing so. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sorry for noise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. 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, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverted good faith edits Windows Server 2012

Codename Lisa

I have read the {Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken} and would like to respectfully disagree with your removing my edit. I would not have removed the redirect just for the convenience of not having to go through a redirect but did so because the content that is being directed to is at the bottom of the page, on a fairly long article that on a at first glance appears to be a separate subject. It isn't until you scroll to the bottom of this page that you can find the content you are looking for. This was initially confusing to me and I would have to assume to other readers as well.

Is there another way to direct users this content that preserves the redirect but also makes it easy for readers to find the content they are looking for?

“There are exceptions to this exception: where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name”

“It is also possible to create a _targeted redirect, i.e. a redirect to a particular point on the _target page—either a section header or an anchor. For example, Malia Obama redirects to Family of Barack Obama#Malia and Sasha Obama. Therefore, entering "Malia Obama" will bring the searcher straight to that section of the article Family of Barack Obama which deals with "Malia and Sasha Obama".”

Looking forward to your reply

Unconventional2 (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Unconventional2. Simply put: Fix the redirect instead. I've done so.

Oh, and a word of advice: Long unformatted messages have the risk of not being read. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link I really appreciate it!

Next time please consider doing that right away instead of just reverting the edit

Unconventional2 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Unconventional2

I assure you, I do not delay fixing anything like that ... provided that I know about it. Wikipedia is big; no one can see everything in it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You are under an ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4t3uz (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Orphaned non-free revisions

It looks like the template merge discussion has been closed to merge {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} with {{Non-free reduced}}. I'm dropping by to offer my help with this process. I don't rightly know the best way to go about this, except including some content from reduced to orphans and then redirect reduced (and its redirects) to orphans. I can get User:Legoktm to update his script (which helps admins) but we would need to reach out to someone with Twinkle to update that as well as a few admin pages and categories. Let me know what you think, and if you don't mind me helping. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Timothy

Thanks a lot. Here is what comes to my mind:

1. ✓ Wording: The wording of {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} is just perfect. No need to do anything there.
2. Twinkle: Sven Manguard has posted a message in Wikipedia talk:Twinkle § Template:Non-free reduced, used in Twinkle, is being depreciated. We must wait for the results.
3. ✓ Category: Category:Rescaled fairuse files, Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old and Category:Rescaled fairuse files with invalid timestamp need to emptied and deleted. I will act by replacing them in {{Non-free reduced}}, so that they don't fill up. But is there a bot or script monitoring them?
4. ✓ References: {{Non-free reduce}} must name {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} now, in spite of the redirection. Twinkle is about to delete the mention of {{Non-free reduced}}, so people must not look for it in Twinkle's list.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk)

You are a rockstar! I reached out to Legoktm to update the admin script that we use to process the deletions quicker. I hope to hear something soon, but that's not pending. Let me take a stab at some of the other things. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed it from a few lists of file templates. Since its now depreciated, there is no use for it. As soon as the Twinkle developers handle that I will personally delete the template. It looks like you've moved the file. I need to ping Theo's Little Bot (talk · contribs) owner to get that bot updated. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sven already dropped a note for Theopolisme (talk · contribs), so that's handled. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: You can delete its documentation page at Template:Non-free reduced/doc and its doc talk page at Template talk:Non-free reduced/doc. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done and  Done. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As soon as Twinkle is updated I will delete the categories and the template (the template populates the categories). The bot that reduces is turned off. The bot owner will update the code (should be just a simple swap out) before turning it back on. I cannot think of anything else to do, but if you do, let me know. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Legoktm updated his script that administrators use, so that's helpful. Still waiting on Twinkle. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, noticed. I also noticed the transclusion count dropped to 1. (There is one in the WP:VP archive that I cannot touch.) So, I went ahead and converted the template to a redirect. (Even without Twinkle's update, it is okay because even before that, no one inserted both templates at the same time.) I also updated {{furd}}. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Snakebite

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Snakebite. 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, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Abaqus_CAE_6.9.3.png

Hello Codename Lisa! I am not familiar with copyright and wonder how you got the copyright for the aforementioned image in Abaqus? How do I have to proceed if I want to use a similar screenshot for the german wikipedia? Thanks --Alva2004 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Alva2004. I didn't upload it; according to the page history, User:FleetCommand did.

You must save this file and upload it to German Wikipedia. Be careful not to upload it Commons by mistake. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with German Wikipedia. Maybe User:Stefan2 can help. It seems he understands German language.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox mobile phone#Unrestricted bootloader

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox mobile phone#Unrestricted bootloader. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

Please comment on Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. 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, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Rellink

Ouch, this was a painful edit... You just put the text "1. REDIRECT Hatnote", plus the redirect template, at the top of 460,000 articles. Please test edits like this in the sandbox before you make them! Remember that a pattern of edits like this can be grounds for revocation of the template editor right. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Teaches me not to edit Wikipedia on its maintenance hours when there is a baby around. Good thing I reviewed the edit. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I just remembered that I should tell you about User:Jackmcbarn/advancedtemplatesandbox.js. It allows you to preview a page with a template sandbox, and treat the sandbox as the template itself. It's very useful for previewing how changes to a meta-template affects articles. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black mamba

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Black mamba. 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) 00:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you stalking me?

I noticed you are constantly checking my edits. This is getting uncomfortable. � (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, �.

You constantly contribute to articles that are in my watchlist. So, naturally, I see them. I do not actively follow your contribution log. So, no, I am not stalking. We just happen to have same interests. Perhaps we can collaborate?

But I myself do have an admitted stalker, so I know what it feels like.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I don't mean to scare you but you must know that Wikipedia is designed so that every change is reviewed by at least one person. Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft Windows can see your every edit in their respective area. In addition, many editors patrol Special:RecentChanges. Basically, stalking in Wikipedia is good and approved. Hounding, however, is not.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

]:::Haha, Codename Lisa is stalking me as well, then. I don't know Codename Lisa very well and have no idea if Lisa is female or male; but I know he or she puts in a lot of thoughtful comments on RfD – some of which I agree with, and some of which I disagree with, that's the point of having a discussion. If she is female, preferably brunette and about six foot tall and knows how to do a bit of plumbing, then I might start chasing her, otherwise I shall stick with the missus. Codename Lisa is quite right, everything is reviewed, people have things on their watchlist and that is how we make the encyclopaedia better. I am an engineer and used to having my work second-checked, in fact I ask for it to be second-checked; even though I know I have done a good job it is natural in the engineering world to have it second-checked and there is no implication of failure there. I bring Ï¿½ a ladder to get off the high horse. I call myself Simon Trew because that is my real name, I abbreviate it to Si because I prefer it but nobody uses the abbreviation. You call yourself an inverted question mark as in Spanish (see interrobang, for example) a double dotted Turkish I and a half-sign. That's really helpful to type, so obviously you are not interested in improving the encyclopaedia but what would be called in southern English "up your own arse", you just want to make yourself look good. There is a notable military historian called Simon Trew at RAF Sandhurst (not me, I stress) and I am forever trying to make an article for him an d failing; but if you come to WP with deliberately a username that is hard to type what do you expect?

Sorry Codename Lisa for polluting your page. Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dates + Refs

Hiya,
I've read MOSNUM more than once :),
If you look at any article most are either DMY/MDY (depending on the country), So I change them per CONSISTENCY, Of course some love my changes ... and others like yourself don't, To be honest I think MOSNUM gets ignored by pretty much everyone here,
Anyway I won't revert for once :)
Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Davey

I'm not quite sure if you message means to say "let's discuss it" or "let's not discuss it". But the purpose of WP:DATESNO is help international collaboration by creating an atmosphere in which systematic bias does not exist, allowing the format of the people who contribute more to stay. I don't know who invented {{Use mdy dates}} but this template is against WP:DATESNO which allows articles to retain different prose and footnote date formats. I and my colleagues who worked a lot on the accuracy of citations use day-first dates. So, if you wish to establish consistency, all you had to do was convert footnote dates to DMY. Prose dates count remain MDY.

It was very painful to me when, all of sudden, someone converted all dates in Windows 8 article (as well as its {{use DMY dates}} template) to month-first date in a busy day. (A revert was not feasible in that situation.) And then, this User:GoingBatty came along on recurrent basis, converted all dates that I added ever since. It is not because of a strange love for DMY dates. (I tolerate far worse aspects of Wikipedia.) It is the painful acknowledgement of the fact that we humans prefer to incite conflict than maintain peace. In this specific case, at least one American feels Wikipedia is American and they must somehow establish their own dominance over everything that is remotely American.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa! You can, of course, look at the history of the {{Use mdy dates}} template to see who created it. I was the one who changed the date formats to DMY in the Windows 8 article in this edit. Looking at the status of the article before my edits, it appears that 128 of the 169 citations (75%) already used MDY dates, so all I was doing was making the rest consistent. If most of the dates were already in DMY format, I would have changed the rest to DMY format, despite my American heritage, as I've done on many other articles.

If you would like to change all the date formats on the Windows 8 article to use some other form of consistency, please go right ahead. If you want to start a discussion on Talk:Windows 8 to determine consensus for which date format the article should use for prose and citations, I will be happy to take the time to implement whatever changes are agreed upon.

Please remember that assuming good faith and being civil are great ways to help international collaboration and maintain peace. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Venomous snake

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Venomous snake. 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) 00:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)