Jump to content

User talk:Codename Lisa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.121.210.102 (talk) at 19:30, 11 October 2012 (→PLEASE HELP !!!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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) [reply]

Nice first article

Well done on writing Microsoft System Center Advisor! I've left a couple of tags on it with some suggestions for improving it. You should of course also feel free to expand it. :) Let me know if you have any questions about writing the article or about Wikipedia in general. I'll be happy to help. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

If you feel that you are being personally attacked, you can report the user/s to an administrator. Great job on writing Microsoft System Center Advisor, it is a well written article.

Cheers,

Riley Huntley (talk) No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Hello, Riley Huntley
Thanks for writing back. For the time being I am not feeling anyone is attacking me but what made me write that feedback was the amount of cruelty that I saw. Never the three years that I read and adored Wikipedia I imagined it as a battlefield. Why are Wikipedians so unkind to each other? Why do they loathe each other? Why no one congratulates another ... for any of the millions of reasons like Christmas and Easter?
And what does AGF stand for? Well, I do know it is probably a Wikipedia pejorative but I am just curious as to what it stands for.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add to that - when you see a capitalized acronym like that, it usually refers to a Wikipedia shortcut page. In this case, it is WP:AGF, which redirects to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You can type the shortcut into the Wikipedia search bar and it will take you straight to that page. A couple of similar ones are WP:BRD and WP:DEADLINE. Pretty much every important page on Wikipedia has one of these shortcuts, so if you get to know them they are very useful for navigation. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 21:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mr. Stradivarius
I do know that. You previously sent me to WP:FA! Remember? Still, if you must know, I thought what I thought because I first saw AGF in a sentence that read "you can AGF for a change, [expletive]!" And now I am thinking the answer must have been "In sharks, maybe, not in you!" But let's not dwell on the dark side of Wikipedia. So, how have you been?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, thank you. :) Of course, if someone actually told you to assume good faith, then it probably means that they weren't assuming good faith, or rather, they weren't assuming the assumption of good faith, which means that in turn you should have been assuming the assumption of assuming good faith, and that everyone in general should have assumed that everyone is assuming good faith (assuming you are assuming good faith). I wouldn't recommend any assumption of faith after this though, as it gets really quite confusing. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation!

Teahouse logo
Hello! Codename Lisa, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 23:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re "About your edit in Microsoft Security Essentials"

I replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Codename Lisa. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Charles (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

I added a note. Welcome to the Teahouse! Tlqk56 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I added another. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Codename Lisa. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- Trevj (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]
Thanks very much for tidying up {{User shared IP address private}}. I don't exactly create a lot of userboxes and didn't take the time to check the latest format or anything. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're welcome. I guess copyediting has become a habit of mine, having recently copyedited an article on a crash course. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep

See WP:SNOW for more information. The AfD is clearly going to say keep, any further discussion will be moot. Roodog2k (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roodog2k
Thanks for the link – I guess. But, to tell the truth, your messages are very confusing. For one thing, I am at a loss: if you want the discussion to end prematurely without going through the whole process, why do you participate in it? For another thing, if further discussion is necessary ("moot", as you say), then why do you request premature closure? Perhaps you meant to write "futile" or "not moot"?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean moot in its purest definition of the word. The discussion is really nothing more than an academic exercise. As for my participation, someone has to state the obvious and save e everyone the trouble. See Abilene paradox for more. Roodog2k (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I just realized moot has a different meaning, almost opposite really, in American English than Commonwealth English. See Mootness for more. If you're a Brit, that may be why you were confused. Roodog2k (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at Dennis Brown's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Template:Ordered list

This discussion ended with no consensus. And my friend, Mr. Stradvarius, had the last word. ;)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi. This could be better, as done in {{plainlist}}. see:

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: diff of Windows 8 editions. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Actually, is there no way to keep the Windows 8 notes off the table itself? (Something like the way I did it before?) It would improve editors convenience a lot.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{efn}} can name the notes and keep them down inside a parameter to the {{notelist}} template. And I prefer that. The templates you were using are deprecated as the don't use mw:cite.php (normal ref tags). However, we have WP:REFNEST; you can't nest references inside each other, which is what several of those note were trying to do. This is also a usability issue as it entails too many clicks to get to the actual source. A better approach is to have the ref in a note directly link to a full cite in a bibliography but that windows page isn't built that way. Many more robust articles are; John Diefenbaker#References, for example. Some editors do prefer the notes to be kept right in the prose for ease of editing while in a section. This is less compelling when the note is in a heap of table markup.
{{Ref}} and {{Note}} are nasty old things from years ago and need pruning. {{efn}} is new and shinier and is preferred.
Also, you should keep threads together instead of splitting them on multiple talk pages, which is why I brought this back here.
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rabbit
Look, I was just being polite but you did not take the hint. So, I'll be frank: No, you are wrong. Both forms ({{ref}} and {{efn}}/<ref>) are equally approved and allowed. Converting between them is called "changing between two optional styles" and is forbidden in Wikipedia. Arbitration Committee has already forbidden such conversions and has previously blocked editors for exhibiting such obsessive compulsive behavior. In the future, please do not do this again.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Ms 364 edits/2 months editing, I've been here for 7 and a half years, made at least 100,000 edits using about 40 accounts, and rather know the ins and outs of the arbitration committee; so I think I know what I'm talking about. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Rabbit
To judge whether you were right or wrong, I looked at Wikipedia policy pages, not at your edit counts or joining date. (In fact, according to those policy pages, we should comment on the content, not on the contributor. Calling someone "Ms 364/2" month is a personal attack that is wrong, not just in Wikipedia, but in all codes of conducts of the world. And man, it hurts!)
While we are at main discussion, it is impossible to move {{efn}}s into a {{notelist}}. I tried. And run into strange errors.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I do it successfully everyday.[a]
  1. ^ User:Jack Merridew
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again
Well, yesterday, I spent a couple of hours on the article and it cannot be done this time. A <ref> inside a named {{efn}} group seems to throw the MediaWiki out of whack. If you don't believe me, you can try it yourself.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I pointed that out to you, above, in the post mentioning WP:REFNEST. I also pointed at examples of better approaches than seeking to nest ref-tags. See William T. Anderson. It has {efn} with references in it. And the article doesn't have a singe ref-tag in it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey.
I know you did. I referred to that help page, did exactly what it recommended and it failed. Looks like your "robust" approach lacks robustness. "The nasty old things" seem to work just fine in this case. If you were suggesting to use harv/sfn style, well, I don't have the luxury of risking it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
meh. those examples work; they're working in the right hand side. that page omits a lot of things; besides {efn} it didn't mention {{refn}}. your not getting this and your not seeing the advantages of this doesn't concern me a whit. these approaches work for me and for many I've taught them to. Bye, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Looks like I have to be frank again: None of what you said so far matters. The only thing that matters is that moving the actual notes to the notes section of Windows 8 editions with your "new", "shiny", "robust" code does not work. (If you wish to try your hand, you are welcome.) Before you came along, notes were where they should have been and everything worked beautifully. What benefit your new approach has in terms of ultimate output and ease of editing? Correct me if I am wrong, but apparently nothing. Now, if you have anything useful to say, I am listening.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in, but when I checked the Windows 8 editions article just now, it was using the {{efn}} template and seemed to be working fine. Codename Lisa, is it not working for you? Could this be a browser issue or something like that? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mr. Stradivarius
You are quite right. We have no rendering problem in the article at this time. However, previously, the actual footnotes were all located in a separate easy to edit section. Now, they are now mixed with the table code, making editing difficult. Any attempt to separate them from the table fails. Also, any attempt to use them twice in the table is also hit and miss; it works 50% of the times. So to summarize:
Before code change After code change
+Good output +Good output
+Easy to edit -Easy to edit
Now, what I have been trying to do was to understand the reason behind this change, which so far seems to be "we were on a break". So, if you don't mind, I am terminating the discussion. Perhaps it is my coding background: As a former software developer, I expect every coder to be able to defend his or her change to the code with scientific reasons. That's pretty much what I was expected to do.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see. Well, I can't speak for Br'er Rabbit, but I think the general reason the citation and note tags/templates have been moved inline is so that they are portable. Picture the scenario: in a couple of years time, the Windows 8 editions article has grown very large, and someone decides they want to split it and turn it into an article written in summary style. As part of this process they move the table, complete with footnotes, to a new article called Comparison of Windows 8 editions. However, they are not very experienced at splitting articles, so all they do is copy the wikicode in the "comparison chart" section to the new article. If they are using {{efn}}, then this won't be a problem, as the template will prompt them to add the correct formatting at the bottom of the article, and then the notes will be visible in all their glory. But if the footnotes were using the old-style tags/templates, then they will get left behind at the old article. So there would be footnotes orphaned at the bottom of the old article with no links going to them, and there would be broken footnote links in the new article. I think that's what Br'er Rabbit is getting at when he says that the new templates and tags are more robust. Anyway, sorry I had to have the last word, but hopefully this will make things make more sense. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic parameter in Article Milestones template

Hey, when you delist a GA like at Talk:Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, you don't need to remove the "topic" parameter. That's only used for the first line of the box (so it says "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children was/is one of the Theatre, film and drama good articles" instead of "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children was/is one of the good articles"); it's still used by the template for delisted GAs as well as GAs. Just thought I'd let you know. --PresN 20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. PresN.
Thanks for letting me know. Much appreciated. Right now, I don't exactly remember which of the two was the reason behind removing it: The fact that it was misfiled as Video Game good article (in spite of the parameter) or a rendering problem with the template.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:QuaternaryGlobal.jpg and File:EdiacaranGlobal.jpg

Please add these images. These articles are Quaternary and Ediacaran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.62.113 (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codename Lisa,

First and foremost, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm uploading a logo that my company is intending to use in the future, but I need to clarify that I do not work for Microsoft nor any of its affiliates.

Secondly, the new SkyDrive logo, as indicated in Microsoft's official blog post, has been officially announced as the new SkyDrive logo. Nowhere in the announcement they have distinguished it as the logo only for the "SkyDrive for Windows app" but not for SkyDrive.com, or any other products and services related to SkyDrive (for example, the SkyDrive WinRT app for Windows 8, the SkyDrive for Mac application, or apps for Windows Phone...etc.). Hence your claim that the logo I "uploaded is (currently) the icon of "SkyDrive for Windows" (a Windows app) not the logo of SkyDrive.com" is purely your own assumption rather than the fact. It should be understood that the new SkyDrive logo is in line with the fair use rationale that it is used to identify SkyDrive, the file hosting service in its entirety.

Hope you understand. Based on the above I have reverted the logo back to the newer version I have uploaded. If any part of my response is unclear please don't hesitate and let me know.

Best regards, Damaster98 (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codename Lisa,
Thank you for clarifying your message. I completely understand the requirement as per WP:NFCC and that the logo is to identify the file hosting service called SkyDrive. However, I disagree with your suggestion that the logo should be changed simply based on what is displayed on SkyDrive.com (or http://skydrive.live.com, which refers to the same thing). I feel that there is a need for us first to get to a mutual understanding as to the scope and boundaries of what the "SkyDrive file hosting service" really defines. Per the SkyDrive article itself, which is the subject of what the logo is really trying to help identify, I'd like to point out that the "SkyDrive file hosting service" covers not just SkyDrive.com, but also the SkyDrive app for iOS, SkyDrive app for Windows Phone, SkyDrive app for Windows 8 (Metro-style), as well as SkyDrive desktop applications for Windows and Mac. I hope you agree that this is what the entirety of the scope of what "SkyDrive file hosting service" covers, at least as at this point in time.
With the scope and boundaries of what "SkyDrive file hosting service" established, then I'd like to point out that as at this date, the new SkyDrive logo is already used on at least on the SkyDrive desktop application for Windows, as well as the SkyDrive app for Windows Phone. As such from your message that the new logo "that is not appearing anywhere" is simply untrue. We are at a point in time of transition, and in the midst of transitioning from the old logo to the new logo. As such, the fact is that both logos are used at this current point in time to identify the "SkyDrive file hosting service", with the trend of transitioning towards the new logo in the very near future to the rest of SkyDrive (as a minor note, I probably wouldn't expect 100% transition, given there will always be one or two odd legacy places that still uses the old logo). Based on this, I believe that the new logo does not violate WP:NFCC, nor does it contradict the fair use rationale that it is used to identify the "SkyDrive file hosting service".
Hope that makes more sense?
Regards,
Damaster98 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again,
No questions for now. Happy for you to proceed the last part (i.e. update the fair use rationale explaining the above). Thanks!
Regards,
Damaster98 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thanks for the changes (and thanks for converting the background to transparent)! I prefer a 64x64 square icon too (without the wordmark) - when the article first started a long time ago it had only the square icon, but someone managed to changed it. Would be good to see it back to the square icon.
Cheers,
Damaster98 (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Metro

Apparently, Microsoft is going to unveil an official name for them "this week", according to sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback

Hm, that seems weird. As Riley Huntley said, if you feel that you are being personally attacked, you can report the user/s to an administrator.

Vincent Liu (something to say?) 08:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Hi, Vincent
Like I said, I am just confused; no, I don't feel like being personally attacked yet.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Codename Lisa. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by  dalahäst (let's talk!) 08:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

In response to your feedback

Please send me a message on my talkpage, and I will take care of it.

ObtundTalk 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

Hi, Obtund
I appreciate your willingness to act on behalf of the good, but I think I posted the feedback eight days ago, right? By this time, the discussion has come to a natural close. A sad end, yes, but nevertheless it is ended. No good comes from beating a dead horse.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:SkyDrive app (Windows 8).png)

Thanks for uploading File:SkyDrive app (Windows 8).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas edits

Thanks for the info and feedback. Yes I missed seeing the program list at the bottom -- much better. I guess I did not understand your description of your edit.

Yes I did not know how to put in the comment like "which" that you showed me how to do, thanks. As I mention below I am honoring the original author's statement that Vegas has won some awards but I am requesting that someone should add specifics. Had I just deleted the claim no one might ever add to the encyclopedic knowledge.

Similarly, I find a problem with deleting a list which has no source. Indeed the perfect encyclopedia is fully sourced and even double sourced. But as I am a user of such info I benefit from such lists. The originator of the list most likely did not just make it up out of thin air. Perhaps it was just part of a film or not, but when you delete it you are saying they are not valid at all. Once deleted there is no structure or sign left where another might be able to come along and prove it. I feel you shold mark it as "need refs" but don't delete it unless you know for sure it is false.

I have read many many many wiki pages where un-sourced claims are made, like a certain chemical being the basis for a certain product, or a certain thing is used in certain industries. This info is very helpful to me as a user. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the writer (within reason) so that the knowledge will grow, not disappear. For me a true wiki asymptotically approaches the truth because of all the efforts of many minds. Babahu (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with every organization after a time, Wikipedia is getting a bit stiff. Fun is out. (joke)
But first, HOW is this conversation made better? Isn't there a better way than on two separate talk pages? What is the preferred method? What is a good method?
Lists:
I feel that the lists provide a universe or context that Vegas lives in. They are discriminate lists. I wouldn't mind if the lists were moved to a "preferred" place, like Wiki-xxx, and linked to. If I were designing Wikipedia I would have it more hypertexed, with the most encyclopedic facts at first visible but then with multiple layers available to drill into if you need more info.
If you knew that the lists are false, then they should be deleted. Or else commented as questionable.
Careful: SOAPBOX ALERT
I care about the user more than I care about what Wikipedia is or is not. If it makes life easier for the user to have Wiki-how and Wiki source and Wikipedia all somehow merged and interlinked, then I would want that. That would be a perfect encyclopedia for me, the repository of all information, all knowledge at my fingertips. But because technology is not able to do this right now --- we are using PHP after all -- we may be stuck with simplifying at the expense of usefulness or fun.
Sincerely, Babahu (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A simple question

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at So God created Manchester's talk page.
Message added 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding. I'll be more than happy to help.--SGCM (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So God created Manchester has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Freeware and MS EULA

I see you have reverted and replaced MS EULA with Freeware. Why exactly. According to the Freeware page, Freeware is a poorly defined term. It is really best to use a poorly defined term? It is as licensed by Microsoft due to that Microsoft applies their own set of rules to their products, and freeware is somewhat vague.

Ziiike (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for calling back. I appreciate your cooperative spirit.
"MS-EULA" is word that gives absolutely zero info to our readers. MS-EULA (Microsoft end-user license agreement) is not a fixed thing. Every Microsoft product has its own unique MS-EULA. Some are free and open-source, some are given to select customers under the terms of strict nondisclosure. (This is in contrast with GPL v2 or CC-BY-SA v3.0 that are fixed things.) Therefore, writing MS-EULA only tells the reader that this product's licensor is Microsoft. We already have "developer" and "author" fields for that.
Now, the word "freeware" tells the reader two things: The product is proprietary software (a.k.a closed source) and the product is available free of charge. Even FSF, which says "freeware" is vague, agrees on these two basic points. Please do take note that there is no single word that represents ten pages of Windows 8's or Internet Explorer's license agreement; and in the infobox, we don't have the luxury of fitting those ten pages. So, "freeware" is perhaps the best compromise for the time being.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Windows 7, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. JetBlast (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JetBlast
I assume you are referring to this edit. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism § Types of vandalism § Sneaky vandalism, it was definitely vandalism (shortcut: WP:SNEAKY).
I sent user a level 1 note but Twinkle upgraded it to level 2.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:SkyDrive logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:SkyDrive logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Explorer is not freeware, it's MS-EULA

Dear, Codename Lisa, we've got a problem, Internet Explorer is not freeware, it's MS-EULA and because, it's commericial software. Example, Google Chrome had EULA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Though it's not my business, I would propose you to drop "Hello USERNAME" and "Best regards," parts of your future comments? Vertical space is very valuable resource on Wikipedia, and your friendly greeting and signature may distract more then calm people. Sorry, if my comment wasn't wanted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
Your suggestions and comments are welcome. Never be sorry for politely stating your mind. However, I'm not sure I can acquiesce to your request. It is a strict requirement of a civilized person to perform greeting at the beginning of each session of conversation. One of the first things that horrified me when I came to Wikipedia was the absence of greetings. (It still horrifies me; only I try to keep myself in check.) I'd rather commit the unspeakable before I forgo greeting. (Alright, maybe something not as bad as the unspeakable. And not murder either. That's still very bad. Okay, I'm babbling.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the greetings are implied in communication. Probably it is a technical tradition from the times when communication speed was slow enough to make every single character matter. P.S.: I treat each thread as an oral conversation, not a mail exchange (and I'm pretty sure many do so). Thus I get stunned when you greet me with every response of yours. P.P.S.: I normally start user talk page discussions with the word "Hello", and I'm terribly sorry that I somehow managed to fail it this time. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a part of Wikipedia where Wikipedian hosts are guided on etiquette - the WP:TEAHOUSE. This is a place for new users to ask any question they like, and the volunteer hosts there all agree to be extra polite in a way that non-Wikipedians would like. Part of the conduct there is always making a greeting like "hello". I encourage you, Codename Lisa, to continue to practice international etiquette rather than adopt the narrow etiquette of a particular culture. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Internet Explorer". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre of SkyDrive

Hi Codename Lisa,

In regards to giving the SkyDrive apps a genre, if you take a look at similar software such as Dropbox and Google Drive, they have all simply been categorised as "Online backup service". Utility software, per the article itself, seems to refer to software such as disk defragmenter, anti-virus, registry cleaner, system monitors, memory testers...etc., rather than a online file backup and synchronisation service. Furthermore, the infobox is applicable to apps for iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and the Windows 8-style app too, and these apps merely serve as a front-end to viewing and accessing files stored on SkyDrive (no synchronisation capabilities), and is not even close to the definition of a utility software. My suggestion would be not to give these apps a genre, but if you really insist adding one (and I don't recommend this), "Online backup service" and/or "Online file synchronisation service" sounds more appropriate. --Damaster98 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You're right, and I do agree with the file synchronization part of the desktop apps do fall under a form of utility software. I guess I was having doubts with regards to the other "apps" for iOS, Android and Windows 8 apps, where they don't have a synchronization functionality. However, you've convinced me that they are in fact file managers, and that does fall under utility software. I have no objection with it being a utility software genre, however I'm not sure whether other average readers would also see that association when they're reading the Infobox (they might have the same reaction as I did) - perhaps some clarification, such as Genre = Utility software (file manager, file synchronization) might solve this problem. Your thoughts? --Damaster98 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IE on DRN

Hello! Your comment regarding followups to your proposal is needed in DRN discussion. Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at John F. Lewis's talk page.
Message added 19:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

John F. Lewis (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Photoshop CS6.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Photoshop CS6.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Windows 8 apps, citations

So basically, you're saying that the citation has to go right when something that needs to be cited shows up in a sentence or else it doesn't count? That entire paragraph relating to Contracts and related was being sourced from that one PC World article, which itself was an account of a Microsoft presentation. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi..
Excuse me, but I did not requested citation at all. I requested clarification.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually noticed that afterward. Also, why are you insistent on removing the word "the" as well? And you consider statements surrounding how Microsoft is intending, ahem, Windows Store apps to be designed, to be "advertising" too? If that's the case, I am re-writing them. ViperSnake151  Talk 
Hi.
You kept saying "the Windows Store", which is grammatically wrong. "Windows Store" (the phrase I mean) is a trademark, therefore it is already definite and does not need definite article. "The Windows Store apps" is also wrong; plural nouns ("apps") do not take definite articles. "The Windows Store app" is correct, but only if you are talking about a certain app.
As for the advert, I think you mean the US$99.0 certificate. Well, correct me if I am wrong: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; and from a neutral point of view, the US$99 goes to VeriSign not Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft was running a VeriSign partner's affiliation program to help VeriSign sell certificates does not have due weight. It attaches unnecessary attribution to Microsoft. But again, isn't "affiliate program" advertisement?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the" Windows Store

Look at articles when they reference the App Store, they always use a definite article. Plus, it flows better when its referenced in articles. Now, "Google Play" however, does not sound like a location. The phrase "Android apps are normally obtained at the Google Play" obviously sounds very awkward, but the previous name, "Android Market", does not ("Android apps are normally obtained at the Android Market"). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
That is because neither "App" nor "Store" are definite nouns. The phrase "app store" is indefinite; if someone hear it out of context, he won't be able to tell which store. Phrases "Apple App Store", "Google Play" and "Windows Store" are definite phrases because "Apple", "Google" and "Windows" are definite qualifiers. "...obtained at the Android Market" has two grammatical errors: You obtain apps from, not at, a certain store. It should be "Android apps are normally obtained from Android Market". (Of course, you can say "Apps can be obtained from the vendor at the Android market in 35 Unity Drive" or "...from the vendor at Wal-Mart.")
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Internet Explorer 10 icon.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Internet Explorer 10 icon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re .Net Framework Version History

Contribution to .NET Framework version history

Regarding your message to me on my modification being rolled back, please view http://www.visualstudiolaunch.com/vs2012vle/Home ; Looks like "Modern app" is correct to me.

Advice

Hi Lisa, I suggest you disengage from Malleus at the FA review. He has made some good points though, so I recommend you find someone to copyedit the article (you might try looking here) and then ask him to strike his oppose. You have several supports, so the nomination likely won't be closed for some time. Good luck, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Will comply. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just walked in and don't know the particulars, but when dealing with Malleus, the phrase Do not poke the bear comes to mind. Malleus is actually a smart and helpful fellow if you get to know him, but he isn't easy to get to know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for "just walking in". And thanks for the advise. Will comply. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. BRD does not appear to apply with your dispute with Malleus. He can be difficult to work with, but he is an expert at writing the best written prose, so take his word even if he might be a bit incivil.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, thank you. Will bear in mind. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the explanation

Hi there!

Thanks for your explanation and an apology realy wouldn't have been necessary, but thanks all the same ;) Just quick: It wasn't even realy my link, I already changed the link since it wasn't working correct any more. Seems like the section realy has been moved or deleted, so it's just fair to remove the link as well! Thanks for the good work :) ColdCase (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Since we have been discussing the FAC that you are working on, I thought I would drop a note to say so. On my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis
Thanks.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just about finished my copyediting sweep now, and I've also addressed a couple of the (I think valid) points Nikkimaria brought up in the review. If I hadn't made so many edits to the article I'd be leaning towards support, but obviously for me to support the article now would be improper. I have though withdrawn my oppose, so good luck with the rest of the review. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Don't be afraid to ask Nikkimaria to go back and revisit her oppose whenever you feel comfortable about the changes I've made; that's perfectly normal. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Malleus. Thanks. You've been grand through all this. I appreciate your efforts. I think I'll just do that once I am back home. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't quite finished looking through all the citations yet, but basically we need to be making a distinction between newspaper/magazine reports and web reports, in particular by dropping all the "|work" parameters from {{cite web}}. If you haven't already by then I'll try and look through the rest later this evening. But we're getting there; I've never seen an FAC fail because of an inconsistency in its citations. And if you can find acceptable replacements for the two sources that Nikkimaria is asking about than I think you'll be pretty much home and dry. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Softpedia is unfortunately critical but fortunately there is broad consensus in its favor in Wikipedia. All we have to do is to prove it appropriately. Robert Borland's source can be safely deleted. This article used to have five sources, which can be found in the history. GermanJoe, in the first FAC made me remove two. One of them will do well to replace it. I'll be busy for few hours but then I can delete the offending source and optionally, go dig for a replacement. (No big hurry though.)
As for the citations, I still am not sure what seems to be the problem. I've read quite a lot of MOS pages about citations but I still am not quite sure I understand Nikkimaria. So, yes, I feel I am a victim of my own lack of experience. I also see you switch |work= with |newspaper= which I find most surprising because these two seem to be aliases (I looked at the code).
But as for the rest, yes, I feel we are almost there. One final push should do it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's to do with the italicisation; for instance, you'd put The Guardian in italics, but not "Guardian Media Group". It's really no big deal, but I'll go through the lot later. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through all the citations now and I think the formatting is now consistent, so far as I can tell anyway. My rule of thumb is only to use {{cite news}} when you're using a printed newspaper/magazine/journal as a source, and {{cite web}} otherwise. BTW, ref #34 (Sinofski) is dead; it might be good to fix that before anyone else notices. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The source is repaired. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You now only have one oppose, which I don't think will carry much weight, so just a matter of being patient now I think. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
While others might have given up, your persistence and cooperative nature helped insure Microsoft Security Essentials became worthy of the title "Featured Article". It is your first, but hopefully there will be many more. You have clearly demonstrated that Wikipedia is a richer place with you as an editor. Thank you! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, well done! Cloudbound (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with what you call vandalism

...because this reverted a good faith edit by a new user. See WP:NOTVAND; vandalism is bad faith.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
I think I'll defer this case but I think you should see, WP:VANDTYPES, subsection "Sneaky vandalism". If he had only and only reverted my BRD revert, I would have never call it vandalism. But he should consider studying Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, all vandalism is in bad faith, and because this user's edit was not, this was not vandalism. POINT won't apply unless he/she edit wars over this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I think you are right, even though if you look properly, it seems he has edit-warred over it. (Twice in a row he has restored the grammatical errors that I fixed, along with his own sentence.) Even if he is not a vandal, I think he should receive a notice about not reverting things not relevant to the subject of the dispute. Perhaps it is best if a neutral person like you deliver it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all honesty I'm not neutral on this dispute with him because I'm siding with you. I'd only bring up edit warring if he makes a third revert. (please don't use talkbacks with me, I use Special:Watchlist) --Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Oh, you're taking my side? I didn't know that. But I digress. I didn't mean sending him a notice about edit warring. I meant sending him a notice about not reverting things that are not relevant to the subject of the dispute; at least not without an edit summary. In general, all reverts need an edit summary. At least in this matter, you are not involved yet.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was probably getting an edit conflict when he tried to undo your revert, and probably was lazy and decided to save his changes anyway, thus reverting your grammar fixes. He probably overlooked this and we shouldn't make a big deal over it, unless he makes a big deal over it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Codename Lisa. You have new messages at Talk:VGA (disambiguation).
Message added 23:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi CL, I hope you don't mind but I undid your change since I made it conform to MOSDAB. Please could you read what I wrote, and we can discuss? Thanks Widefox; talk 23:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Codename Lisa. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 07:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to notify me

I removed some stuff from the IE pages because they were wrong. Those versions did not use the Trident engine. Of course you can check it out yourself later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.196.28.159 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will, thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.196.28.159 (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

You've been here a while, done some really good stuff, hoping you will stick around longer. You might want to start archiving your talk page. The bot will do it for you. You can pretty much steal the code off my talk page (I use much larger archive sizes than most, 3x larger), or just go to User:MiszaBot III page for into. It isn't required of course, but I'm betting you will find it handy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE HELP !!!

Dear Codename Lisa, please help !!! Russian Wikipedians wants rename Microsoft Windows to Windows !!! Please, go and leave to Russian Wikipedia immediatelly !!! ru:Microsoft_Windows

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codename_Lisa&oldid=517253632"