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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(talk page watcher) Hello, NeilN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unlucky for you as I can discount your assertions of vandalism and "pure stinking filth". I agree with SoWhy's subsequent protection against disruptive editing, though. I suggest that if you're counting on your definition of vandalism to exempt you from WP:3RR and the like in the future, you may want to reconsider. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Codename Lisa: I'm not sure why you think I was unsure if it was vandalism or a content dispute. I've made it clear repeatedly that it was a content dispute which probably could have been solved by reworking the material a bit instead of reflexively reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Sorry to butt in, but you might want to look up "repeatedly" in the dictionary. I am very interested in seeing the diffs of those "repeated" statement of this certain position. 'Cause I think you were Mr. Uncertain the whole time. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 21:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So you have actually said twice. (I rule the 2nd diff is not valid.) I didn't know CL went to WP:RPP. Oh, well. That's that. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 21:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: And I respected your judgment and refrained from further reverting since 10:06 UTC. (That's when I saw you RPP closure result.) Also my message in Talk:Windows Defender did not have any mention of vandalism. If you say you had never been unsure, I take your word for it.

Of course, if one day, I make my own Wiki, all instances of disproportionate fussing will be considered vandalism. But I think you and I are both grownups and can respectfully disagree, can't we? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one more reason why the Arbitration Committee should be appraised of NeilN's activities. Behaviour like this [5], this [6] and this [7] is beyond the pale. 31.54.203.120 (talk)

Not really part of this discussion but I have also noticed a persistent trend of vandalism in many of the computing articles. I also have very good reason to believe conflict of interest and POV Neutrality is a factor. I want to contact an admin discreetly who could assist me in this matter, please recommend a course of action.

By the way if it makes a difference I'm an IT hardware engineer, so....somewhat an expert. Which is why I agree with the user above who mentioned vandalism. I can also see it. Thanks.122.59.228.76 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/FleetCommander? Sro23 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: No!

As a matter of fact, I categorically hate being called "FleetCommander", which occasionally happens.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FleetCommand, thank you for your comments at my RfA, even if they weren't the...nicest...to read. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Cheers, ansh666 00:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ansh666. Thanks for this olive branch. I can certainly appreciate your act of extending it. The first five admins that I met were not so nice. (Two of them got the ArbCom's worst side of judgment much later on and one of them has not been contributing for seven years.)

Perhaps you benefit from knowing this: My first experience of nominating an image for deletion was a screenshot of Windows Media Player that had an album art in it. In the lengthy discussion that ensued, I naively explained why I thought it is not in the spirit of copyright to have this image, in my own childish language. (Nine years ago!) The image as kept. When I nominated it for the second time, I was much more knowledgeable about Wikipedia. I only mentioned WP:NFCC#3; the image was speedy deleted and no one made the slightest sound. I still think the first time, the attending admin must have known NFCC by heart and deleted the image, teaching me the correct language in process. Perhaps I don't expect to see you in image deletion area, but I expect this level of competence from all admins nonetheless. Mustn't I?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Me at least - if there's something I don't know, I try my best to avoid it until I take the time to read and understand everything I can, whatever it is. Thanks for the explanation, and I hope I don't end up like those first admins. Cheers, ansh666

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is FleetCommand and their harassment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to say this to another adult human, but... It is not OK to say that you will be happy when another editor dies. Do not do it again. An indefinite block will result if you do. Is that clear? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I am not proud of it.

I was in a fit of rage.

Still, it beckons the question: What kind of project sets WP:CIVIL as its fundamental pillar and yet permits editors to drive their colleagues to a fit of rage?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FleetCommand,

Assuming good faith, I'm not sure if your edit summary of your revert was intended. "Reverted act of censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. I have observed that from time to time, someone deletes contents from video game articles either citing a policy that DOES NOT sanction said action, or without any defense". That Wikipedia is not censored means, well, we actually call things by their names, like Fuck You (CeeLo Green song) or that we've got articles on racial slurs.

Removing game guide material is not censorship at all. As a frequent editor of video game-related articles, WP:GAMEGUIDE is a pretty basic one. The stuff you've just reinstated, is, well, game guide material. It describes the factions' units in detail and mentions the price of upgrades. Wikipedia is intended for a general audience, not for people interested specifically in Act of War: Direct Action or for people familiar with video games. The plot and gameplay sections are sufficient. As such, I'm going to take out the factions section again. If you think it's worth keeping, the burden to find sources is on you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Soetermans. I could swear you are an admin. But it seems you aren't.

Anyway, before getting offended, allow me to quote Codename Lisa: "Censorship" is used when the content deletion is assumed to have been done in good faith. Bad-faith content deletion has another name. Do you know it? "Vandalism"!

Now, as to the contents, I DID NOT restore "factions' units in detail and mentions [of] the price of upgrades". What I restored does not even resemble... well, this: [8]. I know what a game guide is. I am a frequent customer of GameFAQs! Sure, go ahead and delete any game guide you find in Wikipedia. This instance was not a game guide. It was a short overview; video game articles must not be a plot section only.

As for the source, yep, this a very common backup/fallback argument for deleters. (Still, the fact that they use it as a fallback shows that it is just an excuse. Otherwise, deleting unreferenced contents is much more plausible.) However, I am well aware that video games are considered a valid source on themselves if what is written can be easily and without much complex research be found in them. Why, all the plot sections are like that.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, excerpt from the WP:GAMEGUIDE:

An article about a video game should summarize the main actions the player does in the game. [~snip~] A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and I'm not offended you thought I were. I'm not convinced by you quoting the interpretation of WP:CENSORSHIP by another editor, and I do not agree with the use of the word. To assume I would censor something or someone is not in good faith at all. I have to ask you to please stop using the term in the future, because I am offended by that and it is not what WP:CENSORSHIP is about.

A basic video game article layout is lead, gameplay, plot, development, release, reception and maybe legacy, and if needed, other media and sequel(s). A separate "factions" section should be put into either gameplay or plot. As this one doesn't decribe anything plot-wise, it should be in the gameplay section. Exactly the part you're quoting, a "concise summary", not overly detailed. Take a look at StarCraft, a featured article. The gameplay section described the factions in one sentence. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand, I'd appreciate if you don't mention my name in every single dispute. If you think doing that causes me to take your side, I am sorry to report that it causes the opposite. And, Soetermans, StartCraft series has one full-length article about factions and another about characters. Please be careful: The moment your disputing party feels you are using deceit, you lose all hopes of getting a resolution; adding insult to the injury by saying "screw your good-meaning words; I'm insulted by them anyway" makes it worse. It gives the impression that you actually want to be insulted. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, Codename Lisa. I didn't need to say I'm offended. It's that I don't agree with the reading of WP:CENSORSHIP, as it does not mention anything about assuming good faith concerning deletion/emptying sections. While true, Races of StarCraft describes the factions from a narrative point of view and describes their gameplay aspects in general. It is also properly sourced. Another example is Red Alert 3, in which the in-game factions are put in the design subsection of the gameplay section. The Act of War section just mentions the units, Red Alert 3 makes clear how the factions differ from each other. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: That's the spirit! If it were in a dispute with me, I'd have said you redeemed youtself. I am sure you and FleetCommand can strike a compromise and have fun, if both you keep to this. Possible avenues of compromise are:

1. Cut down the overly long list of examples. e.g. If 15 units are mentioned to make a point, and one is not enough (i.e. deleting 14 looks like a massacre!), just use three. Three seems to be a golden number in Wikipedia! (And write it in your edit summary. Very soothing, I find.) If there are two sets of examples each using a set of three different units, see if you can make both using the same set.
2. Add other aspects of faction, e.g. their focus, tech progress and composition. (Alright, I feel am literally stealing from StarCraft. )
3. Search some of the readily available sources for developer notes about factions or reviewer's analysis on them.
4. Replace personal analysis with facts that have the same meaning. For example, this sentence has a personal analysis: "Zerg are in a disadvantage, because if they lose their Hive, all their production capacity goes in one fell swoop". Without person analysis: "All of the Zerg's production capacity comes from the Hive and is lost with it." (Okay, not the best example of my writership, but you get the point. Whether this is a disavantage or no is something that the readers can decide for themselves.)
5. Do not have a strict obssession to stick to the same format as other articles. WP:OSE is the second most hated argument in Wikipedia. (Most hated in my book.) Once, I and Jasper Deng defied a layout formula to add something because I felt the content justfied itself. Result: The article went GA!

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know that WP:CENSORSHIP doesn't say the good faith thing. In fact, I know that it is deliberately vague. But most censors are noble people. They censor things because of e.g. protecting children, preventing religious people from being insulted, improve a story by making it more tasteful. They don't act out of malice. (Vandals do.) Censors never delete the article's content and replace it with "poop!" —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I do not know any wikipedia policies. So i just thought that is okay to do. Also why dosent wikipedia have a message button. I only know basically how to edit wikipedia, forget making constructive edits.

I do happen to agree with your assessment, which I think in my tenure might be my first occurrence. Having thought about it the following day, I realize it may have stepped over that line. It bugs me when veterans pick on the new guy, or when they overreact to being reverted. I let my protective nature get the best of me! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: Well, I am glad you wrote this, although when you say "It bugs me when veterans pick on the new guy", who do you mean? For all I know Zazpot has been here since 2005, Indrek and I since 2006, you since 2009. That makes Codename Lisa the new guy, who has been here since 2012. The newest guy improves the oldest guy's edit, only to be treated with a reflexive revert. After a lengthy discussion, only a couple of words end up changing. You'd wanted to comment on this strange outcome too, if this happened to you. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving two examples of things that bug me, the latter of which applied in this situation. No need to read any deeper than that. If you need a specific example of why CNL's responses could be seen as an overreaction or why the final comment was an unnecessary final stab, then I'd probably question whether or not you are taking an objective position here. It should really be obvious. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: Fine. I will assume the whole purpose of starting this discussion was to tell me you are okay with me revert. Happy editing. Hope we see each other in better circumstance next time. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to clarify, we are in agreement regarding your revert. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So are you just going to keep hitingt revert or actually fix this? There's no definition between which are "free" and "commercial". Using your logic, everything under the Free is non-commercial.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheHarry: Hello, to you too! Yes, I am fine, thank you. You and the wife doing well? ;)

I observe a simple distinction between these service:

1. In some of them, you browse and watch anything they have; they won't charge you. Example: YouTube. Until today, I've paid not a single dime.
2. In some others, you cannot watch anything unless you pay. Example: Windows Store and iTunes Store.

What's wrong with all this?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And where in the template does it say that? Looks like you just defined it on the fly. I watched YouTube and paid with my time watching adverts, on iTunes Store I'm sure there's plenty of free content.--JacktheHarry (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JacktheHarry: iTune Store is devoid of free video. But there are free apps, which are not our concern here.

As for ads in YouTube, I usually tell people to look at the full half of the glass, instead of the empty half, but you are looking at that one-millimeter-thin emptiness at the top of a full glass, because:

1. Ads come with commercial video services too.
2. In commercial services, payment is obligatory. Failing to pay means that the Copyright law will see to it that you will go to an awful place called prison! Ads can be blocked without any legal consequence.
3. Ads are not served for all countries of the world. Ad owners don't want to pay for serving ads in a country where they have no market.
4. What you said is exactly the definition of "free". Hence the proverb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add your definition to the template then, as you keep reverting any of my attempts.--JacktheHarry (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come, come, now. You make a content dispute look like a tragedy. You did a couple of things wrong, that's all. You can always do the right thing, e.g. cut and paste this dispute to the template talk page, call in a WP:3O, etc. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not want to waste time, but the short of it is that there is a new version of windows 10, i added the most important features, and I put a <ref> to each item. Your edit loses information and adds nothing. Hard to add info. Easy to revert. That's not how we move Wikipedia forward. ARosa (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arosa: Wikipedia is work in progress but that does not mean its article must be in shambles all the times. You disfigured the article. That is a problem that must never happen.

Plus, your sources are outdated. Face it: You don't have enough information about this certain edition.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

It occurred to me that you might not be aware of the DS that apply to MoS; this might explain your lack of caution at WT:MOS recently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]