Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome, Codename Lisa!

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

Hi!

You recently proposed deletion of BS.Player artilce. Unfortunately, this article is not eligible for WP:PROD, because it was already subject to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS.Player and probably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSplayer). You might want to send this article to its third WP:AFD instead.

Best regards, — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarkoff: Hi. Both of those AfDs are ended with delete. So, this article has never been discussed in an AfD. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW wording of WP:PROD suggests that only articles that were never discussed (as opposed to kept) are eligible. Anyway, there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS.Player (2nd nomination) now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. 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, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_cracking&diff=617588483&oldid=617497894

No POV-pushing in the reason field. fyi, that sentence is actually POV pushing. Ironic, isn't it?

"Reason" is there to clarify exact for what the source is needed. In this case, it is quite clear. No. Where do you find that explanation? The reason is mostly for why it is needed. The what should always be quite clear since the tag is inline. 'No wikilinks in reason field.' would've been a valid remark.

If I wasn't assuming good faith I would've called you out for increasing your edit count with this ;) Less than 10 minutes to find a good source, see your error, put down a new sentence, edit and reference. Please do something similar next time instead of reverting because you actually make things better this way!

Source added I liked this one. That wasn't just the addition of a source but a complete rewrite with "my POV" but sourced ;)

Things like loader and patch must still be mentioned somewhere in the article, so I've added those. --Ondertitel (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ondertitel: Hi

I don't nitpick on what |Reason= field can be used for. But per Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, contributions without source may be challenged or removed. You added something without source; I deleted it. You added something without source in |Reason= field; again, I deleted it. It is true that the text before it was also unreferenced, but the burden of proof is on the contributor who adds or reinstates an allegation.

As for the source, yes, it is amazing that I found it so fast. I guess it was pure luck.

By the way, I don't get your point about edit count. It seems you are suggesting that increasing this count is good thing, while I know for a fact that it isn't. I've seen one editor with 500,000-ish edits blocked indefinitely.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't nitpick on what |Reason= field can be used for. But this is exactly what it looked like!

By the way, I don't get your point about edit count. Bogus reason and very fast fix looks iffy. I am indeed suggesting that many people think edit count matters. I don't either because it results in many people making lots of small unsubstantial edits. Articles hardly improve by this.

Please explain [1] Deleted erroneous footnotes that did not render a verifiable source. How do they not render a verifiable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondertitel (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) They are not verifiable – literally, one can't verify a source that is not specified. Where do I find genuine articles "Test_Drive_Ferrari_Legends_PROPER-FLT" and "Test.Drive.Ferrari.Racing.Legends.Read.Nfo-SKIDROW"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it "Test_Drive_Ferrari_Legends_PROPER-FLT .nfo file" then? For me that last part is implied with the warez scene release name, but not a problem at all to include that though. One can very much verify this! You can start by checking one of the various public predbs to see the releases actually existed and aren't made up. Next step is to opbtain the NFO file. Originally this goes through an illegal source, but there are sites that just publish these files without serving or linking to any illegal content. One of these would be nfohump.com but it got added to the spam blacklist because the original user that proposed its addition thought the site was illegal. Even after sound arguments and hearing back from WMF legal counsel admins refused to take it back off. I don't want history to repeat so I don't add links when there is any discussion going around. What did came out of that whole debacle was that "External links are not a requirement for citations. They never were.", so this is why I added quotations from the NFO file. --Ondertitel (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) External links are not requirement for citation, but ability to verify the information is. According to your comment, I can't verify the claim to this source without committing a crime, which flies in face of WP:V and WP:COPYLINK. And even then this is a primary source that has to be replaced with secondary one if challenged (which is what Codename Lisa did). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading comprehension isn't that well. I did never say or suggested this: I can't verify the claim to this source without committing a crime. You can. Codename Lisa did only challenge the verifiability. Also, Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Given the article we are discussing, it's hard to find anything else that isn't just scratching the surface. Also the reason I added multiple sources. --Ondertitel (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, your footnote does not have enough data to become a source because it still needs all of your justifications. Second, reliability of the source is another matter entirely. Self-published sources are potentially unreliable because they lack one of the three elements of a reliable source: A publisher who vets them. So, it is impossible to say whether they are using neologism or a widely accepted notion. Third, the quotations that you used do not say the same thing as the sentence to which the footnotes are attached. How can one go from "our competitors do the same" to "not allowed in the scene"?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First: which justifications? ".nfo file" and a link can always be added but aren't necessary. Searching on the release name will find the text. It is similar to a DOI or ISBN. Second: "widely accepted notion" we are in obscure territory here. They might be both. It fits [2] but isn't OS specific. If you search you always find something Windows related first. [3] Third: ah, you saw it too :) I thought about it afterwards but for different reasons. "our competitors do the same" was later explained to be emulation of the protection, not a loader. Not allowed was a direct quote from this one. Other groups indicate too that a loader is not seen as a proper crack: [4]. The problem I have with it is this: I checked the rules, but there is nothing crack specific in there [5]. Also around these things there is often discussion and nukewars. The claim is probably true, but it doesn't look black and white all the time. It will be better to assign the claim to some specific groups.

I might have found a better source though:

SHUB-NIGURRATH [ARTEAM] ET AL: "Cracking with Loaders: Theory, General Approach, and a Framework", CODEBREAKERS MAGAZINE, vol. 1, no. 1, 1 January 2006

I will check it out later. --Ondertitel (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you reverted my edits to Template:MSN services. I'd like to point out there were already other services that were not necessarily discontinued (such as MSN Search, which takes you to the Bing article) under the "Discontinued" section, so the issue is not solved by a simple revert of my edits. Also, other things that are in fact discontinued (such as MSN Shopping, MSN TV, MSN for Mac OS X) remain in the above sections as if they're still active. I think it's time to rethink this template. If you know more about the subject matter than I do, I suggest you overhaul it. --Samvscat (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samvscat

Your point is fair. Please take it to talk page. Unfortunately, I was about leave the computer for an important real-life business. I have no choice but attend later.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Myofascial meridians. 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 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just scanning and seeing: "It was yet another informal fallacy about web browsers that deliberately ignores the facts that we have web apps", I just thought you might have an opinion on grouping web based (or mobile) OS with Unix-like in a flat list (not quite though) or qualified. "Does this or similar have a WP:SNOWball in hell of getting accepted?" comp.arch (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I have already mentioned elsewhere that Unix-like is not an operating system family; it is rather a descriptive attribute like "operating systems with a GUI" or "x86 operating systems". So, as long as all other forms of grouping possibilities are not explored and done with, I don't agree with a grouping of called "Unix-like". I am sure there is always a better more-refined structure.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mensuration. 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, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do not like discussion if you delete talk messages. BRD'D is for Discuss --2001:470:722E:C1A0:554F:16D5:A47B:E6A5 (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening...

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) So, why can't those things get restored: the "Active" status tag (like it was before) instead of nothing; and the link to the descriptive download page with instructions at the official site (like it was before...) instead of a plain and confusing list of files? --2001:470:722E:C1A0:554F:16D5:A47B:E6A5 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "Active" to |Status= goes against WP:DATED; unless you use {{As of}} and add a source too. Better leave it blank. Same meaning, less trouble. No one bothers you for not asserting something.

|frequently updated= no longer exists. People didn't know what it actually did and indiscriminately set it to "yes".

I have nothing against changing the link.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so... It would be "Active As of 2006^[update]", because ffdshow had development halted in May 2006, and the first beta of the tryout was released on December 2006. But okay, let's leave it blank then...

And, didn't know that. Sorry.

I'm going to change the link then.

Best regards,

-- V. 2001:470:722E:C1A0:554F:16D5:A47B:E6A5 (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFdshow development is inactive. Check links before editing. Hei Liebrecht 14:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But tryout is still mantained and not discontinued as was stated incorrectly before, since last revision 4532 by clsid came the day after that post... --2001:470:722E:C1A0:4DA8:48CE:85A9:53F3 (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But it is quite natural to release one last version. ffdshow-tryouts status is set to inactive and interpreting the last release as evidence to the contrary is WP:OR. If it happened again in the future, we then talk and decide what is best to do.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair enough to consider inactive as discontinued then... There is also a small blue "Inactive" tag next to the project name so it's really official. --2001:470:722E:C1A0:5A5:F425:349E:26F1 (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for future discussions, might come in handy if this topic is raised again. Hei Liebrecht 19:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Video (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''[[Video]]]''' is an electronic medium for the recording, copying and broadcasting of moving visual images.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa,

you made some edits at the template which broke the infobox at Accelerator (Internet Explorer) and thus the nonfree image is not longer displayed / I got a notice that the image is orphaned. Would you heck your code and fix the template code, please? mabdul 11:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The problem was in the article itself. I've fixed it for now.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re [this edit]. I believe the link you reinstated is broken. Command Prompt was recently moved to CMD.EXE. (Windows seemed to favor the name "Commmand Prompt" for its CMD.EXE program, but that's a vague name, and when it gets to specifics it uses "CMD".) But unlike a typical page move, Command Prompt was not made a redirect to CMD.EXE. Thus, WP:NOTBROKEN does not apply in this case. Instead, Command Prompt now redirects to a different page: the generic Command prompt (lower-case "p") which is not specific to OS/2 and Windows NT; it includes Unix shells and even includes COMMAND.COM again. Thus the link for the successor to COMMAND.COM must be fixed to link to CMD.EXE. Agree? Further, in keeping with the reason for the move, based on WP:COMMONNAME, that link is best to be direct to CMD.EXE. Agree? That was the intent of my edit. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A D Monroe III:

Hi.

I was aware of the move but was not aware that someone changed the target for Command Prompt, thereby corrupting every backlink to it. I am reverting the change now. (e.g. Malicious Software Removal Tool's link to Command Prompt is meant to go to CMD.EXE.)

As for WP:COMMONNAME, no, I vehemently disagree. IMHO, the rename procedure that lead to changing "Command Prompt" to "CMD.EXE" was a gross and outrageous act of cheating consensus and lack of proper regard for WP:ALLCAPS. I do not feel bound by it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, making Command Prompt be a redirect to Command prompt was done per the outcome of Talk:CMD.EXE#Requested move 14 July 2014. It sounds like you disagree with this result. Maybe you want to open a new move discussion? The closer of the RM was User:Jenks24. In terms of backlinks to Command Prompt there are fewer than 50, and the need to fix links should not be considered an insuperable obstacle to making a move that is otherwise desirable. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: You are mostly right, but not completely. The outcome was to redirect to a disambiguation page called "Command prompt"; consequently, the misleading element was absent. Since "Command prompt" is no longer a disambiguation page, incoming links simply mislead the reader.

As for Jenks24, I will perhaps send him a trout, for not renaming to "cmd.exe" instead of "CMD.EXE".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. Feel free to start a new RM for your preferred "cmd.exe.", but in that discussion the only person who made a good case was Matthiaspaul and he made it in favour of the capitalised version. Note that closing admins can only assess the arguments that are made, we're not allowed to just go "well the arguments are clearly in favour of all caps, but screw these people I prefer the lower case version so that's what I'll move to". I've undone your edits to Command Prompt – everyone who commented in the RM agreed it should redirect to command prompt, regardless of whether it was a disambiguation page or WP:CONCEPTDAB, which it is now. Again, feel free to start a new discussion about that. Jenks24 (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenks24:: Hi. Please let me refresh your memory: Talk:CMD.EXE § Requested move 14 July 2014 consensus was a redirect to a disambiguation page called "command prompt". That page is no longer a dab page. Hence, per WP:CCC and WP:NOTBUREAU, that consensus is rendered invalid by the current circumstances. At this time, leading the existing backlinks of Command Prompt to cmd.exe is the most logical choice. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:CONCEPTDAB. It is still a type of disambiguation page. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenks24: I know. And that's exactly what confuses the visitors who click on Command Prompt. Face it. It is no longer what the editors' approved as an appropriate redirect. This is what they approved: Special:Diff/618031347. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is confusing at all, that is the whole point of broad concept disambiguation pages. And the page is littered with links to cmd.exe so it's not like it's any harder to get to what is arguably their destination article than if Command Prompt were still a standard dab page. But OK, clearly I'm not going to convince you and, to be perfectly honest, these articles hold very little interest for me. I'll let you trash it out on the talk page with anyone who is interested. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I love about admins: They either escalate the discussion or leave it alone; they never continue it just to irritate their fellow Wikipedians. God bless them all. But yes, we do seem to disagree on that. "Command Prompt" in computing does not have the same value as "command prompt"; like argus monitor and Argus Monitor; or windows and Windows.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article was deleted (by me), and later contested - so has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to consider WP:AfD Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted the history restored. I've changed the page back to a redirect now (which means WP:AFD isn't applicable anyways). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones: Hi. Given the comment by Dogmaticeclectic above, it appears the undeletion was a mishandled userification of the page. Would you please re-delete the page again?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Please leave the page as is. This has nothing to do with userification - I'm not even sure why it was brought up. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said it. The act of wanting "the history restored" as you put it, is called userification. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is called "history-only undeletion". From WP:DRVPURPOSE: "to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these)" Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know about "history-only undeletion" and the reasons for it, which are absent in this case. Where is the "new, improved version of the page"?

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the redirect qualifies as that. Is it new? Definitely - it wasn't there before, after all. Is it improved? Well, that is obviously subjective, but given your own reasoning for the initial WP:PROD I'm guessing even you would agree that having the redirect is better than having the article that was previously there. (Whether it would be even better not to have anything at that location at all is besides the point in determining whether the new page qualifies as "improved" - after all, "improved" doesn't mean "best".) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have created the redirect without requesting an undeletion. In fact, this is exactly what you must have done. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't create the redirect - someone else did. Second, even if I had, what would have prohibited me from requesting undeletion afterwards? I know of no such policy or guideline. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? If all you want is a redirect, then create said redirect. Anything else that you do is wrong. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Anything else that you do is wrong." That's not a particularly convincing argument... in fact, it isn't an argument at all. I'm done here; if you still disagree, feel free to take this dispute to WP:RFD. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You restored content that you don't need and ask me for providing a convincing argument? That's rich. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do something like this - or anything similar that also clearly violates policy - again, I plan to report you directly to WP:ARBCOM (since the general Wikipedia community is clearly incapable of conducting fair user conduct assessments), primarily for repeated WP:BAITING. (Administrators, you cannot block me for posting this message per Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats, even though I have little doubt some of you are itching to do so: "Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats.") Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, on the other hand, you are willing to reasonably work with me instead, I would ask that you please refrain from further actions that may reasonably be construed as WP:GAMING, and instead use discussion to try to implement significant changes you might want. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just got the same arbitration threat you did... ViperSnake151  Talk  15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Viper. Let him do his utter worst. History has shown that Dogmaticeclectic is the record-keeper in having the worst understanding of Wikipedia policies, norms and editors. Hence, listening to him, is a foolhardy gambit. In addition, he is utterly incapable of assuming good faith and is susceptible to episodes of rage, as is evident from his block log.

Be as nice as possible to him; but be ready to go to the ArbCom. Metaphorically speaking, the Judgment is at hand.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fyi (TV network)#Merge discussion ViperSnake151  Talk  00:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pectinidae. 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, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get that you reverted it, however the opening part is just the default windows behaviour for file types. in other words, whatever is assigned to open .mht files, itll open it. do we really need a reference for that?

about the outlook for mac portion: ive got no reference atm, however i was able to test it.Ceremony64 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. 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, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, I don't think you understand the change I made to the infobox image settings. Specifying exact px widths is a deprecated practice because it doesn't adjust for the user's preference. All major Infobox templates use the sort of settings I put there. What the 'upright' parameter does is scale the image based on the default size set in the users preferences (Preferences > Appearance > Files > Thumbnail size). The default is 220px and scaled by the upright factor of 1.25 I set means the resulting image is approximately the same size as the hard-coded px size the template used, but if people adjust their default, the image scales for them, where the hard-coded way does not. Please revert yourself or explain why you think something that is used in most major Infoboxes is a "bad idea". Added - This is a MoS issue as well, covered in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size. -- Netoholic @ 23:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person who says "so it is written, so it shall be" is a bureaucrat. I am not a bureaucrat. I only value what has practicality.

Most infoboxes don't show what {{Infobox OS}} or {{Infobox software}} or {{infobox web browser}} shows. So, I don't care what they do or what they don't.

As for reverting myself; you have cheeks, sir... No, that's not how template editing works. A responsible editor does not make bold edit in templates and once reverted, does not edit-war. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A responsible editor follows guidelines and standard practice unless they can actually demonstrate a reason for an exception. You're wasting time talking about reversions, yet not discussing why this template should be exempted. As I see it, if you want to avoid an edit war, don't participate by reverting. This is not a "bold edit", it is standardization and maintenance. I'll give you a day, then I'll reimplement this innocuous update. --Netoholic @ 02:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily transcluded templates should be worked out on the talk page and in sandboxes before being altered. Thank you. Chillum 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied this same change to dozens of templates in the last few months, and the same image size setting method is in use on probably hundreds of the most popular templates. I can assure you, its been tested. This is just posturing. -- Netoholic @ 02:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is just like every other part of Wikipedia, if someone objects then discuss instead of reverting. On a transcluded template this is more important. It is about consensus, not just testing. Chillum 02:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her only objection was a snarky revert edit summary of "A very bad idea". You'll forgive me if I don't take that too seriously. She still hasn't given an explanation as to why. -- Netoholic @ 02:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you are wrong. It is you who did a bold change and the burden of explaining and convincing is on you. I or just anybody can simply revert a bold edit to a template just because we are not convinced. This is not double-standard because it was done to me; it is done to anyone who makes a bold change to a widely transcluded template.

As for "a very bad idea": How am I supposed to say that the result of what you did looks significantly inferior to the status quo without you assuming bad faith? {{Infobox software}}, {{Infobox OS}} and their kin show images that are not scaling-friendly and many of the layout decisions made are based on a fixed-width infobox. I was about to create a sandbox to show you why, but now I am thinking: Why bother? Why do your homework and at the same time be branded as the bad guy?

Concerned,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll to the top of this section and you'll see a very detailed explanation for you. I went ahead and put the change in all those sandboxes for you, take a look. My change will not impact any articles where the image is hard-coded today. It simply removes the need to hardcode, and over time you can remove the hardcoding as you maintain the various articles. Hardcoded pixel sizes are deprecated practice, simple as that. If there are specific instances that require a hardcoding, the template already has logo_size and screenshot_size parameters that allow overriding. It simply is not a change worth all this vitriol. Next time you misunderstand the impact of an edit, maybe before you hit that revert button against someone that you know to be a proficient template editor, you stop and maybe ask them to help explain it to you. -- Netoholic @ 05:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Scroll to the top of this section and you'll see...". I saw the effect of your edit and reverted on the merit of inferior quality. I don't want your explanation now. Inferior quality speaks for itself. Time for explanation is long gone. Now it is time for teamwork.

"My change will not impact ..." Please don't do it to yourself; all that your sentence succeeds in doing is to pain you as woefully ignorant of what your change does and what it does not.

"...against someone that you know to be a proficient template editor...". Your huge block log does not exactly say you are a proficient template editor, nor does your performance in Infobox OS. Never for one second imagine that you are one of the esteemed template experts with whom communicating is a peerless privilege.

Concerned,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps related to the above: the image I added to the infobox serves as a logo — a widely recognisable image (by being included in icon form in Windows) used to market and represent the product. It is no more or less informative than any other logo. If you dislike the image size, you can change it in your preferences. As for making the article "look grotesque", I have no idea what led you to this opinion. — Keφr 08:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Thanks for calling me personally, Kephir. The proper venue for discussing contents disputes is a corresponding talk page, where the visiting community members can provide additional input. As such, I will send the image to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 8, where we can discuss the issue in the presence of the community. Please feel free to study the guide Wikipedia:Files for deletion and participate in the discussion.

Again, thanks for contacting me.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that and other than the last two the rest were from 8 years ago. I used a week to give everybody the opportunity to discuss the matter at Template talk:Infobox OS. If after a week there is no discussion or the edit war resumes then other options can be looked at. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is to try. It may turn out for the best. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 11:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, as far as I can recall, this is the first time we have interacted I don't think I'm really qualified to answer that. To try and answer it would be unfair. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The VisualEditor team is currently working mostly to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

The biggest visible change since the last newsletter was to the dialog boxes. The design for each dialog box and window was simplified. The most commonly needed buttons are now at the top. Based on user feedback, the buttons are now labeled with simple words (like "Cancel" or "Done") instead of potentially confusing icons (like "<" or "X"). Many of the buttons to edit links, images, and other items now also show the linked page, image name, or other useful information when you click on them.

• Hidden HTML comments (notes visible to editors, but not to readers) can now be read, edited, inserted, and removed. A small icon (a white exclamation mark on a dot) marks the location of each comments. You can click on the icon to see the comment.
• You can now drag and drop text and templates as well as images. A new placement line makes it much easier to see where you are dropping the item. Images can no longer be dropped into the middle of paragraphs.
• All references and footnotes (<ref> tags) are now made through the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" menu, including the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" (manual formatting) footnotes and the ability to re-use an existing citation, both of which were previously accessible only through the "Insert" menu. The "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-referencelist-tooltip⧽" is still added via the "Insert" menu.
• When you add an image or other media file, you are now prompted to add an image caption immediately. You can also replace an image whilst keeping the original caption and other settings.
• All tablet users visiting the mobile web version of Wikipedias will be able to opt-in to a version of VisualEditor from 14 August. You can test the new tool by choosing the beta version of the mobile view in the Settings menu.
• The link tool has a new "Open" button that will open a linked page in another tab so you can make sure a link is the right one.
• The "Cancel" button in the toolbar has been removed based on user testing. To cancel any edit, you can leave the page by clicking the Read tab, the back button in your browser, or closing the browser window without saving your changes.

Looking ahead

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables. Work to support Internet Explorer is ongoing.

Feedback opportunities

The Editing team will be making two presentations this weekend at Wikimania in London. The first is with product manager James Forrester and developer Trevor Parscal on Saturday at 16:30. The second is with developers Roan Kattouw and Trevor Parscal on Sunday at 12:30.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at the VisualEditor feedback page or by joining the office hours discussion on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 09:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East and Asia) or on Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 16:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Europe).

If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at Meta for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Constant folding. 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, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that a request for clarification of what you meant by an insinuation of "self-promotion" is trolling or a personal attack, as you did here, is absolutely beyond the pale. If you do that again, we're heading to the noticeboards. --erachima talk 15:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First personal attack, then allegation of vandalism and now threatening me? Not cool.

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the original comment or its removal was a personal attack. The threat for the noticeboard is silly. Lisa asking for clarification is not an accusation. Erachima I don't think your comment should have been removed, rather it should have been answered. But to suggest it is something worthy of a noticeboard is not reasonable.

Instead of noticeboards and templates use your words. Chillum 15:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Attempting to delete non-policy-violating questions from other editors on a public discussion forum is an immediate and complete breakdown in the normal resolution of disputes via discussion, not to mention being a simultaneous violation of pretty much every civility rule we've got. The only things which deserve quicker escalation are legal threats and doxing. I thank you for your swift intervention, however, and hope the matter is settled. --erachima talk 16:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA is a founding policy. When I believe something is a personal attack, it entails that I believe it is a policy violation too. Even if I didn't, such treatment of the subject is ex post facto. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: Very well, if you say so. Perhaps if Erachima's comment was a denial of attempting a personal attack instead of accusation of vandalism, I was less inclined to think of him as battlefield-minded. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we both talking about this[6] edit? All I see is a request for clarification and substantiation of a statement. Where does vandalism come into it?

Is there somewhere where there is indication that the author has a conflict of interest? Did you say self-promotion when you meant appears promotional? It is a subtle distinction but the former does imply something about the author, the later does not. It appears that is what Erachima was concerned about[7], a clarification on terms.

The warning given to you was out of line, a friendlier message seeking to clarify things would have been more appropriate. Regarding your edit summary, I don't see trolling or personal attacks in what you removed. I don't think it is a failure to AGF to ask what someone meant, though "If not, I'd highly suggest..." does imply he thinks that what you meant.

It is still not clear to me if you think the author was affiliated with the subject and self-promoting or if you think it was just a person writing something in a promotional tone?

Often instances of trolling are only apparent when a pattern is demonstrated and a single incidence of the pattern looks harmless. If there is context that I am missing that puts this in a different light then I apologize for my misunderstanding. Chillum 16:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: Hello again. I conceded my view of what erachima's message means over yours when I self-reverted. Hence, you understand, we are discussing a changed opinion now. I think such a message is very offensive, even if it is written in good faith; Basic etiquette mandates that he put his concern in at least some trepidation.

An article that promotes a subject – or ends up doing so in good faith – is promotional. A promotional article about a promotional device is "self-promotional" unless it advertises a controversy about the promotional subject.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think this all comes down to a confusion in terms. The dictionary defines self-promotion as the action of promoting or publicizing oneself. The author of the article Sky6t had been a contributing member for over a year before authoring the article. The author has been contributing to a variety of subjects since 2011.

A promotional article about a promotional device is "self-promotional" is not a definition that seems to be in any dictionary or commonly used. I see that you did not mean to imply that the author was promoting themselves. I think perhaps you could see why Erachima thought that was what you were saying? Chillum 16:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would be right but only if you forget that Inori Aizawa is a moe anthropomorphic fictional figure; its existence is the very material about her. So, yes, she can self-promote herself. (i.e. she can promote Internet Explorer.)

But if you think I am wrong, I've already asked erachima to explain what I mean in what he deems the correct way. You can give it a shot if you wish too.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, I have to the best of my knowledge never spoken to Codename Lisa before this AfD, though since I last paid significant attention to the community about 6 years ago I may be mistaken.

But at risk of forking the discussion, yes, I initially just wanted a clarification of why the phrase "self-promotion" was used, since I could find no evidence of it by looking at the contribution history of major page editors. I initially assumed she simply misspoke and wanted her to take back the accidental accusation. Lisa's continued refusal to answer that question is now becoming troubling in its own right, however, as she has now definitely and deliberately chosen to maintain an accusation of WP:COI that is, as far as I can tell, completely meritless. --erachima talk 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have ran into Lisa all over this project and she always seems to be a reasonable person. I think this whole thing is a misunderstanding. Above she says A promotional article about a promotional device is "self-promotional" which means she meant something else. Chillum 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: every comment we make on wikipedia is subject to WP:consensus.there is a clear diference between WP:SELFPROMOTION and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SELFPROMOTION is often used when you suspect a WP:COI. From my WP:NPOV erachima (talk · contribs) is right! No WP:consensus stipulated that A promotional article about a promotional device is "self-promotional" Wikicology (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikicology: Hello. Your argument is based on lack of the existence of the consensus, not based on the consensus. If there is no consensus against something, then that something is allowed. But nevertheless, I have asked several times so far: If that is not how I must have explained it, then how must I have explained it? i.e. if I am wrong, what is the right way?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no idea what you think you mean by "self-promotion" because your usage is so non-standard, so I can't tell you how to say what you're thinking. Just rephrase it almost literally any other way and you're probably fine. --erachima talk 17:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have no idea what I mean but are certain that it involves accusation of COI? With this attitude, rephrasing it is just as risky as not rephrasing it because if I rephrase it and this time you think, say, I am accusing someone else of having an illegal affairs, then I'll be in for some real treat, won't I?

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is accidentally accusing people of COI. I do not know what you think you are doing because you are using words wrong. So fix it. --erachima talk 18:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is assuming evil faith. Per your own word, you don't know what I mean. Yet you choose to think it is accusation of COI that I mean; you even name a specific user too! As I said, in this state, "fixing it" runs the risk of you thinking that I am doing some other form of evil-doing. As long as you have this attitude, you are not welcome in my talk page anymore.

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he did not assume "evil" faith. You used a term whose primary and only definition means to promote oneself. He did not assume you meant the author had a COI he asked you. The difference is when you assume you just think something is true, in this case he asked you because he was not assuming.

You failed to assume good faith when you interpreted the question as "trolling, personal attack and failure to assume good faith".

Take a step back, read the dictionary definition of "self-promotion" and consider the possibility that your choice of words caused a misunderstanding and that nobody is assuming bad faith about you.

He did not assume that "self-promotion" meant a person promoting themselves(thus a COI), the dictionary states that as the meaning of the term. Rather than assume anything he asked you for clarification because it did not seem to make sense.

I thought this was all a misunderstanding but now that it has all been explained you are still accusing erachima of somehow assuming evil of you. It was a reasonable interpretation of your words and not an assumption of bad faith.

The section heading and the warning were the wrong way to respond but so was replacing his question with a {{rpa}} template. This is much ado about nothing. Chillum 01:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chillum

I'll address things one by one:

1. You're still discussing a past self-reverted action. I can do nothing else beyond a self-revert.
2. I have also agreed to take a step back; only I am still unable to figure out the right version. (Doing so is incredibly difficult under the torrent of personal remarks.) Here are the words that refer to the same thing:

   But in practice, this certain article's sole purpose is to show how cute she is. Now, that is self-promotion.

   How does Sky6t come in? I have no bloody idea.
3. WP:NPA says "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Therefore, starting with Special:Diff/prev/620788130, erachima cannot eat his cake and keep it too. Either he acknowledges that wording is the problem and therefore only wording must be discussed, or still believing that I am accusing someone, in which case there is a burden of evidence. Yet, since diff #620788130 he has been doing both. This perfectly seems a case of WP:ASPERSIONS to me.

I cut you a deal: I will remove or redact that comment of mine which erachima feels are implicit arguments on person if he removes all the comments on my person.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Look, if you ever felt that someone is trolling or personal attacking, remember: You have the right to remain silent; it is inexpensive, insults nobody and is very effective.

@Erachima: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by making grammatical errors, especially not so persistently. And I'm sure Sky6t is a big boy (or big girl). He can make a move if he feels unjustly accused.

@Chillum: Okay, I don't assume to give advice to admins. They already think I am a pig. But you know, the real world is not like Transformers movies. In the real world, Transformers don't help U.S. government fight Chinese and U.S. government only helps the Transformers if it feels not doing this leads to their extinction. On the contrary, Transformers would look with disgust at both U.S. and China.

Fleet Command (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand, the only transformers movie I have seen is "The Transformers: The Movie (1986)". I am pretty sure in the real world transformers are fictional characters that don't really exist. I am confused by your statement but will just assume it was a joke that went over my head. Chillum 20:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh! Lucky you. I watched Transformers (film), became a fan, watched Transformers 2 and Transformers 3 and now I don't really feel the first Transformers is that great either. Not gonna waste my time on Transformers 4. But your sig does transform! Fleet Command (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this discussion was definitely not about Transformers but, by all means, please, feel free divert. It is no less against Wikipedia policy than the original discussion.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 8601. 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, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Done/See also#Re-organization of the /See also page. Thanks. Funandtrvl (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Are there any Wikiprojects that are not practically dead? None that I'm in, it would seem. Jeh (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is WikiProject Microsoft Windows active?

I don't know about other projects. I keep my project participation very focused, but I am going to need to migrate after this.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IPhone 6. Since you had some involvement with the IPhone 6 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CloudComputation ^{Talk freely}
_CloudTracker 04:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:OpenOffice.org. 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, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd better respect to yourself before you making warning to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janagewen (talk • contribs) 01:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) What an angry editor! Is it only because of this revert? He surely behaves like you killed his entire family. I see he has previously had a quarrel with User:Jeh too and has put him in his so-called blacklist. So, I guess denying recognition counts as respecting yourself. Fleet Command (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he subsequently deleted the blacklist from his user page. But, judging by his talk page, some significant WP:NOTHERE-ness. Jeh (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should make thanks go towards people above for caring my writes. I created a stupid "Not Welcome Buddy List", not blacklist. People listed on that list just showing not welcome, but not blackout. Then I was aware that it was a stupid thing so I removed it. I also left my note on Jeh's talk page, and at this moment, that has already been removed too! For what? I have no will to know. That's it, that the meanlingless of meaningless. So I should show my respect to myself, explaining these meaningless thing. Janagewen (talk) 07:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]